CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAC58EE0E { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46C37B92 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s17B413C5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:39.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s469066A6 { width:125.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s9138CF0B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:right } .s1FF972B7 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF HOLODENKO v. LATVIA   (Application no. 17215/07)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   2 July 2013   FINAL   04/11/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Holodenko v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 17215/07) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Mr Jurijs Holodenko (“the applicant”), on 10   April   2007. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms   D. Rone, a lawyer practising in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs   I.   Reine, who was succeeded by Mrs   K.   Līce. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he has been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by police officers and that the authorities had failed to investigate his allegations. 4.     On 6   September   2011 the complaint under Article   3 of the Convention was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1969. A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention, and the injuries sustained 6.     At 7.18 a.m. on 9   June   2006 the State police in Rīga received a telephone call from R.H. who reported that two men had broken into his apartment in Rīga and attacked him with an axe. The alleged victim had escaped but his girlfriend, O.A., was still in the apartment and was allegedly under threat. According to reports drawn up by police officers K.H. and V.O. on the same date, four police officers (V.O., D.V., M.S., J.S.) from the “Alfa” special operations unit ( Speciālo uzdevumu vienība “Alfa” ) and two police officers (K.H. and I.G.) from the Rīga Main police station (First Division), went immediately to the address given. Next to the building they met R.H., who was bleeding. He guided the police officers to the apartment, where they saw a naked woman and two men. One of the men (the applicant) attempted to escape, so the police had to use a special combat technique to put him on the ground. The applicant did not calm down and was therefore handcuffed. Both men, as well as the alleged victims, R.H. and O.A., were taken to the Rīga Main police station (First Division). The applicant was searched and the police officers found narcotic substances on him. 7.     According to the applicant, on 9   June   2006 he was in an apartment in Rīga visiting acquaintances and consuming alcohol, when suddenly five or six police officers arrived. They handcuffed and searched the applicant, and punched him a number of times in the head and body. The applicant was then dragged to a police car and taken to a police station. After an altercation with the police officers, the applicant was wrestled to the ground. The police officers kicked him; one of them jumped on him while he was on the ground, and another pulled open the applicant’s eye and hit him in the eyeball. The ill-treatment lasted for about half an hour, during which the applicant lost consciousness several times. Afterwards he was put in a pre ‑ trial detention cell where he asked for medical assistance. Only after repeated requests was he admitted to hospital. 8 .     The record of the applicant’s arrest under article 46 of the Administrative Offences Code, drawn up at 8 a.m. on 9   June   2006 by police officer O.K., stated that the applicant had bruises on his arms and wounds to the left eyebrow and right cheek. It noted that during the search of the applicant the police had seized, among other things, a firearm-like object and a plastic bag containing a transparent substance. According to the report, the applicant was released at 4.30 p.m. on the same day and subsequently arrested under section 264 of the Law of Criminal Procedure. The arrest report indicated that the applicant had had a swollen eye and had been under the influence of drugs. 9.     According to medical records, at around 1 p.m. on 9   June   2006 the applicant was examined at the State Drug and Alcohol Abuse Agency where it was confirmed that there were traces of narcotic substances in his body. At about 10 p.m. the same day the applicant was admitted to Rīga Hospital No. 1. He complained of a headache and pain in the left part of the chest. An X-ray was taken and he was diagnosed with bruising on the head and chest. 10.     On 11   June   2006 the Rīga City Latgale District Court remanded the applicant in custody. 11.     On 12   June   2006 the applicant was admitted to the Latvian Prison hospital ( Latvijas Cietuma slimnīca ), where the results of an X-ray examination carried out on 13   and 19   June   2006 established that he had four broken ribs. 12.     On 27   June   2006 the decision to detain the applicant was revoked and he was discharged from the hospital. 13.     On 29   June   2006 the applicant was re-arrested for alleged possession of drugs which had been discovered on him on 9 June 2006 (see paragraph 8 above) and remanded in custody. Deciding on the measure, the investigating judge relied, inter alia, on the fact that the applicant had expressed his intention to leave the country. 14.     From 29   June   to 12   July   2006 the applicant was again admitted to the prison hospital where he was diagnosed with “a condition after a series of fractured ribs on the left side. Post-traumatic neuralgia”. B.     Investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment on 9   June   2006 15 .     On 27   June   2006, following a complaint submitted by the applicant on 14   June   2006 that he had been ill-treated by police officers, the State police Internal Security Office ( Valsts policijas Iekšējas drošības birojs ) instituted criminal proceedings in case no.   11819004606 with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in the short-term detention unit of the Rīga Main police station ( Rīgas Galvenās Policijas Pārvaldes Īslaicīgās aizturēšanas izolators ). 16.     On 21   July   2006 R., the investigator of the Internal Security Office, sought medico-legal assessment and also asked the expert to ascertain whether the applicant’s injuries could have been self-inflicted. 17 .     On 28   July   2006 the first medico-legal assessment was carried out on the basis of the available medical data. Additional information was requested from the health-care institutions and a radiologist in relation to the applicant’s chest injury. On 12   October   2006 the radiologist concluded that the applicant had four fractured ribs on the upper left side under the arm. The fractures were considered to be “fresh”, possibly sustained on 9   June   2006. On 16   October   2006 the medico-legal expert concluded that the fractured ribs constituted a medium-to-severe bodily injury causing long ‑ term health problems of more than twenty-one days, whereas the other bruising constituted light injuries causing short-term health problems of no more than six days. The conclusion stated that the applicant himself could have inflicted the bruising to his head and the hematomas on 9   June   2006, and that they may have been caused by a blunt object. The expert noted that the applicant had not been subjected to an early medico-legal assessment and it was therefore impossible to draw conclusions concerning the exact number of traumatic impacts. Nor could the expert draw conclusions about the exact manner and time at which the fractures had been sustained because the initial X-ray examination of 9   June   2006 had not disclosed that injury (the report stated that the results of that examination had not been kept) and the information about it had appeared for the first time on 13   June   2006. The expert stated that it could not be excluded that the fracture might have been caused on 9   June   2006 because the applicant had complained of pain on the same day. Nor could it be excluded that some of the injuries could have been caused as a result of the applicant falling down against a hard, uneven surface, but it would have had to have happened more than once. 18 .     From July   2006 to January   2007 nine police officers from the Rīga Main police station and the special operations unit were questioned. Police officer K.H. stated, inter alia , that when he and I.G. had arrived at the apartment, the applicant had tried to escape and had attempted to kick the police officers. Therefore he and some of his colleagues had had to put him face down on the ground and handcuff him. 19 .     In relation to the applicant’s behaviour in the police station, K.H: stated: “... After having been brought to the [premises of the Rīga Main police station], the detainees behaved aggressively ... [the applicant] tried to kick me, used abusive language about police officers and threatened to cause us problems. In view of the aggressive behaviour of [the two detainees] and the fact that during arrest they had tried to run away, in order to prevent them from absconding again ... we ordered them to lay face down on the ground. A.S. obeyed our orders but [the applicant] refused and started to swear. Therefore [I] applied physical force, forced his hands behind his back and put him face down on the ground, [and] handcuffed him again. ([Let me] clarify that at that point his handcuffs still had not been removed and I did not force his arms behind his back but took [him] by the arms). Afterwards the search [of the applicant] was carried out.”... 20 .     The other two police officers (I.G. and V.O.) who had participated in the applicant’s arrest stated that the arrest had been carried out speedily. Once they had taken the applicant to the police station, their shift was over and they left without having witnessed the applicant being searched. 21.     The other police officers either could not remember the events at the police station or contended that no-one had used force against the applicant. In particular, D.J. submitted that at 8 a.m. when he took up his duties at the police station the applicant had already been handcuffed. The applicant behaved aggressively; he was swearing, alleging that he had been detained without any grounds and threatening to cause the police officers problems at work. D.J. then left; when he returned the applicant was in the detention unit and had some facial injuries. O.K. testified that at about 8 a.m. when he had arrived at the police station, the applicant had been lying face down and handcuffed on the ground. During the search the applicant was in a horizontal position on the floor and ignored orders to stand up and respond to questions. S.V., who arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m. and together with other colleagues took over the detention procedure from the previous shift, noted that the applicant had been on the ground. During S.V.’s shift the applicant asked for medical assistance, which was provided to him. G.L., another police officer, could not remember the applicant’s behaviour but recalled that when he had arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m., the applicant had been lying on the ground and O.K. and the witnesses had been drawing up the arrest report. 22.     J.O., one of the two civilians invited to witness the applicant’ being searched, could not precisely recollect the events and whether the applicant had behaved aggressively during the search or whether special measures had been applied, but he thought he remembered that on his arrival the applicant had already been on the floor. 23.     O.A., one of the alleged victims, testified that she had not witnessed any force being used against the applicant in the apartment. The co ‑ defendant, A.S., stated that when the two defendants had been taken to the police station they had been first searched and afterwards put in separate cells, so he had been unable to witness the treatment of the applicant. Nevertheless, he had heard him shouting. 24 .     Meanwhile, following an order from the head of the Rīga Main police station, the human resources department ( Rīgas pilsētas Galvenās policijas pārvaldes Personālsastāva inspekcijas nodaļa) carried out an internal investigation in order to verify the applicant’s allegations. In the course of the investigation K.H. denied that he had used force against the applicant either in the apartment or in the police station. Four other police officers were also questioned and they denied that physical force had been applied to the applicant. G.L. stated that he had arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m. and had seen two men lying on the floor; he and O.K. had filed the arrest report and stated that the two men had sworn at them when they were put in the police cells. His statement was confirmed by two other police officers who had witnessed the events. 25.     The internal investigation was concluded on 15   August   2006. The decision stated that the police officers concerned had denied that the applicant had been subjected to brutal physical force, and that it had not been possible to prove the allegations without carrying out procedural measures. It was recommended that the materials of the internal investigation be forwarded to the Internal Security Office in order to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings, and to decide on any disciplinary measures after the adoption of the procedural decision. 26.     On 20 and 23   October   2006 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment. In response, on 25   October   2006 the Internal Security Office and the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office questioned the applicant as a victim in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill ‑ treatment. 27 .     Meanwhile, following the applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office, on 27   October   2006 prosecutor S. dismissed the allegations concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out by the investigator, R. The decision stated, inter alia, that it was only the applicant who alleged that brutal force had been applied against him. The prosecutor also referred to the conclusion of the medico-legal assessment, which stated that it could not be excluded that some of the bodily injuries might have been sustained by his falling on to an uneven surface. In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, a supervising prosecutor stated that prosecutor S. had simply quoted a paragraph from the medical expert’s conclusion and that she had not contended that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted. 28 .     On 10   January   2007 R., the investigator of the Internal Security Office, asked for an additional medico-legal assessment to be carried out in order to clarify whether on 9   June   2006, at the time the applicant was examined at Rīga Hospital No.   1, he had already had the broken ribs. After obtaining a specialist’s opinion that the X-ray results of 9   June   2006 had disclosed suspicions that two ribs had been fractured, on 23   January   2007 the medico-legal expert delivered his conclusions. He stated that it had not been possible to establish precisely whether the applicant’s ribs had already been broken on 9   June   2006, since the chest X-ray taken after the applicant’s arrest had been of a general nature and had not been taken from an angle that revealed the fracture. 29 .     On 31   January   2007 R. terminated the criminal proceedings. Relying on the witness statements and the outcome of the medico-legal assessment, it was established that when the police officers arrived at the apartment, the applicant tried to escape and to attack the police officers, so K.H. and the officers from the special operations unit, using a special combat technique, put the applicant on the ground and handcuffed him. Later, at the police station, the applicant continued to behave aggressively, kicking one of the police officers and threatening them. In order to put a stop to his aggressive behaviour, the officers ordered the applicant to lie face down on the ground. The applicant refused, so K.H. forced him to lie down. During the search, O.K. and G.L., in the presence of two witnesses, found drugs in the applicant’s pocket. The decision referred to the fact that the police officers had been engaged in an unplanned operation in relation to a serious crime; that there had been a firearm in the apartment; and that the applicant had attempted to escape and that he had not obeyed police orders. Quoting section 31(1) of the Criminal Law it concluded that the bodily injuries inflicted on the applicant at the time of his arrest and at the police station were proportional to the applicant’s behaviour. During the arrest and in the police station the police’s use of force against the applicant had been in compliance with section 13 of the Law on the Police and no criminal liability under section 371   (2) of the Criminal Law could arise. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office. 30.     In February and March   2007 the applicant submitted various complaints about the investigation process to the Internal Security Office and requested the opportunity to identify the perpetrator in cross ‑ examination. He was informed on various occasions that he should address his request to the prosecutor’s office. 31 .     Following the applicant’s appeal, on 1   March   2007 district prosecutor S. of the Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office upheld his earlier decision and stated that the medical documents only indicated the injury and not whether the police officers were guilty. Moreover, it had not been possible to establish with certainty whether the injuries, namely the broken ribs, had already been sustained on 9   June 2006. 32 .     The applicant appealed, and on 23   March   2007 a supervising district prosecutor of Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office upheld S.’s decision. 33 .     Following a further appeal, on 9   May   2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Rīga Court Region revoked as unfounded the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and referred the criminal case to the State police Internal Security Office for an additional investigation. Referring to K.H.’s testimonies according to which he had handcuffed the applicant and the latter had fallen down once, the prosecutor argued that after handcuffing the applicant it had not been necessary to restrain him, and that he could not have sustained the injuries by falling down only once. He concluded: “... it was evident that, first, [the applicant] had sustained injuries during his arrest and, secondly, the treatment (in this case – beating at the apartment and the police station) during which the injuries had been inflicted, was not necessary in order to carry out his arrest: it was not necessary to continue applying force ( vardarbību ) in the police station or to lay him on the ground. ... once the applicant had been handcuffed [he] calmed down ... and the police officers had no legal grounds for applying force ( vardarbību ) against him and causing him medium-to-severe bodily injuries, by which the police officers evidently exceeded their duties”. 34 .     From April   2007 to July   2008 the applicant submitted various complaints concerning the course of the investigation into his ill-treatment, and on several occasions he was informed that the preliminary investigation of the criminal case was pending. 35.     Following a complaint submitted by the applicant on 22   October   2008 to the Prosecutor General, on 6   November   2008 the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office concluded that all the necessary investigative procedures had not been carried out in order to identify the perpetrators; it instructed the investigators to question the applicant and then re-assess all the materials in the case file in order to decide whether to carry out other procedural measures, including cross-examination. It noted that the supervising prosecutor must be immediately informed about the fulfilment of the instructions. 36.     On 27   November   2008, the applicant was questioned again by the investigator of the Internal Security Office and declared that he could recognise the perpetrators because they had been summoned as witnesses in his criminal case. In February and March   2009 confrontations between the applicant and five police officers as well as the civilian witness were carried out. During the confrontation the applicant stated, inter alia , that K.H. and V.O. had beaten him both during the arrest and at the police station; he could not identify the person who had jumped on him. K.H. confirmed that he had had to use proportional force to restrain the applicant both during his arrest and at the police station, whereas V.O. stated that he had not witnessed any ill-treatment because from the place where he sat the applicant’s cell was not visible. 37 .     On 20   May   2009 the investigator R. decided to terminate the criminal proceedings. It was noted that there were serious discrepancies between the statements of the applicant and the police officers. The decision said: “... [n]o causal link could be established between the actions of the police officers and the injuries sustained by [the applicant], and the investigation considers that the applicant could have sustained the injuries before his arrest on 9   June   2006, falling from his height under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The applicant was advised that the decision was subject to appeal to the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office.” 38.     The decision could be appealed with the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant did not submit an appeal. C.     Trial 39.     On 29   January   2007 the lower court convicted the applicant of possession of illegal drugs and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Some of the police officers who participated in his arrest testified as witnesses. As the events had taken place a long time before, they mainly upheld the statements that they had given during the pre-trial investigation. In answer to a question by the court, K.H. replied that at the time of the applicant’s arrest the latter had not shown signs of any injuries. 40.     On 6   June 2007   the Rīga Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It also noted that the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant would be examined in another set of criminal proceedings and that the decision of 31 January 2007 had been appealed against. It stated, inter alia , that it had no reasons not to believe that the applicant had sustained injuries, but that the criminal proceedings had been terminated on the ground that the injuries had been inflicted as a result of the applicant’s behaviour. 41.     On 24   October   2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Criminal Law ( Krimināllikums ) 42.     Section 317 specifies that a State official whose intentional acts manifestly exceed the powers and authority vested in him or her by law, or pursuant to his or her assigned duties, will be criminally liable if substantial harm is caused thereby to the State, administrative order or the rights and interests of other persons. The punishment for such offences may include, inter alia , up to ten years’ imprisonment. B.     Criminal Procedure Law ( Kriminālprocesa likums ) 43.     Section 37 provides, inter alia , that a prosecutor supervising an investigation must give instructions regarding the type of proceedings to be selected, the direction of the investigation and the carrying out of investigative measures, if the investigating authority does not conduct an effective investigation and allows the unjustified interference in a person’s life or causes delays. The prosecutor must also examine complaints in relation to the investigator’s activities and take over the direction of criminal proceedings without delay once sufficient evidence in the investigation has been obtained. The supervising prosecutor has the following rights: to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings and whether to transfer them to an investigating institution; to request compliance with instructions issued in the investigation; to carry out investigative measures to inform the investigator; to familiarise himself or herself at any time with the materials of the case file; to revoke decisions adopted by the investigators; to submit proposals to a more senior prosecutor regarding the determination of the direct supervisor of another investigator of concrete criminal proceedings, or to transfer the criminal proceedings to another investigating institution; and to participate in a hearing in which the investigating judge decides on the preventive measures and special investigative measures. 44.     Section 337 provides that a complaint about a decision or an act of an investigating authority must be submitted to the supervising prosecutor. Decisions or acts of a prosecutor may be appealed against to a higher-level prosecutor. C.     Civil Law ( Civillikums ) 45.     Under section 1635 a delict is any wrongful act as a result of which damage (including non-pecuniary damage) has been caused to a third person. The person who has suffered the damage has the right to claim satisfaction from the person who caused it, insofar as he or she may be held responsible for such an act. Section 1779 provides that anyone is under an obligation to make good damage caused by his or her act or failure to act. D.     Law on the Police ( likums “Par policiju” ) 46.     Under section 13, police officers have the right to use physical force and special combat techniques to restrain arrested, detained and convicted individuals during conveyance and incarceration, if they resist police officers. The use of physical force and special combat techniques will be assessed by taking into account the nature of a particular situation and the characteristics of the individual concerned. 47.     Sections 15, 38 and 39 provide that within their scope of competence the Cabinet of Ministers, the Minister of the Interior and municipalities exercise control over the functioning of the police. The State police are under the supervision of the Minister of the Interior, whereas the Office of the Prosecutor General and its subordinate prosecutors supervise the compliance with the law of police activities. E.     The Law on the Prosecutor’s Office ( Prokuratūras likums ) 48.     The relevant provisions of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, as applicable at the material time, are summarised in Sorokins and Sorokina v.   Latvia , (no. 11065/02, §   57, 11   December   2012). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 49.     The applicant complained that on 9   June   2006 police officers had ill ‑ treated him in order to make him confess, and that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been ineffective. In particular, he complained that during his arrest and at the police station he had been punched and kicked in the head and body, and that a police officer had jumped on his chest and broken his ribs. In this respect he invoked Article   3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Arguments of the parties (a)     Remedies under the Criminal Law 50.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of alleged ill-treatment by police officers. According to the Government, the applicant had two types of remedies available to him. Under section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Law he was entitled to appeal to the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office against the second decision of 20   May   2009 by which the State police Internal Security Office terminated the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 37 above). The decision adopted by the above prosecutor’s office could then be challenged before a prosecutor at the next level, namely the prosecutor’s office attached to the Rīga Court Region. They asserted that the applicant had clearly been aware of that procedure and its effectiveness, because in May   2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Rīga Court Region had quashed the first decision by which the Internal Security Office had terminated the investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment. The Government contended that, as in the case of Leja v. Latvia (no. 71072/01, 14   June   2011) in which the Court accepted the Government’s preliminary objections in relation to the applicant’s failure to submit a complaint to the prosecutor’s office, in the case at hand the applicant had failed to avail himself of an effective remedy and the State had therefore been denied an opportunity to remedy the matter before it had reached the Court. 51.     The applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant had availed himself of three consecutive appeals (in June 2006, and March and May 2007) in relation to the contested events, none of which had effectively changed the outcome of the criminal investigation. She also noted that in most cases the decisions adopted by the State police Internal Security Office had remained unchanged because the police officers had defended each other and refused to recognise procedural mistakes. Therefore, in cases such as this, the procedure set out by the Government for exhausting domestic remedies would have been a mere formality, as had been proved by the decision adopted in the applicant’s case. 52.     In their additional observations the Government dismissed the applicant’s doubts about the effectiveness of that remedy and added, first, that the applicant had submitted only two appeals; secondly, that on one occasion a supervising prosecutor had quashed the contested decision and therefore the procedure could not be considered as formal; and, lastly, that the applicant’s opinion about the success of the remedy was highly subjective and judgmental. (b)     Remedies under the Civil Law 53.     The Government further submitted that under sections 1635 and 1779 of the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant had the right to seek compensation for the damages caused by the State police, if a court had concluded that the applicant’s rights had been infringed. They emphasised that the outcome of the criminal proceedings were not determinative for the success of compensation proceedings. According to the Government, the Court reached similar conclusions in cases such as Plotiņa   v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 16825/02, 3   June   2008), Pundurs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 43372/02, 20   September   2011) and especially Blumberga v.   Latvia (no. 70930/01, 14   October   2008). They added that the threshold for awarding damages in civil proceedings was lower than the one required for establishing criminal responsibility. Concerning the effectiveness of the compensation proceedings, the Government submitted several decisions adopted by the domestic courts in which compensation had been awarded for damages sustained as a result of the unlawful actions of State officials. The Government observed that the applicant had never lodged a civil claim and thus the State had been denied the opportunity to remedy the matter before it had reached the Court. 54.     The applicant’s counsel commented that, since on 20   May   2009 the State police Internal Security Office had discontinued the criminal proceedings on ill-treatment, there had been no legal grounds on which a claim against the State police for compensation for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages could be based. 2.     The Court’s assessment 55.     The Court observes that the essence of the Government’s allegation was that, by failing to institute the second round of appeals’ procedure with the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office and by not seeking compensation in the civil courts, the applicant had deprived the State authorities of an opportunity to remedy the alleged infringements through procedures under the civil and criminal law. 56.     The Court reiterates that Article 35 of the Convention requires, amongst other things, that complaints intended to be made before the Court should have already been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , [GC], 16 September 1996, §   66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV). However, there are exceptions to the rule, especially where the national authorities remained totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents, for example where they failed to undertake investigations or offer assistance. In such circumstances the burden of proof shifts back to the Government (ibid., §§   68-69). Concerning the appropriate remedies, the Court has established that in cases of wilful ill-treatment by State agents in breach of Article 3, two measures are necessary to provide sufficient redress: a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible; and, where appropriate, an award of compensation (see, amongst other authorities, Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, §   116, ECHR 2010). Moreover, in cases of wilful ill-treatment a breach of Article 3 cannot be remedied only by an award of compensation to the victim (ibid., §   119). 57.     Turning to the Government’s arguments about the effectiveness of the civil-law remedy, the Court takes note of the positive developments in the national courts’ case-law in dealing with claims for damages caused as a result of the unlawful acts of State agents. The Court notes, however, that none of the examples concerned claims resulting from the allegedly excessive use of force by the police during arrest. In any event, the Court refers to the principles set out above: that the acts of State agents in breach of Article   3 of the Convention cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim. The Court therefore dismisses this part of the Government’s argument. 58.     As concerns the criminal-law remedy, the Court observes that the applicant submitted three appeals against the impugned decision within the hierarchy of the Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint to the third level of supervising prosecutor resulted in the decision being quashed and led to a supplementary investigation, the decision of which was subjected to another round of appeals within the same hierarchy, starting from the lower one. The question whether the applicant was required to launch a second round of appeals is closely related to the substance of the complaint, and will be assessed together with the State’s positive obligation to take effective measures to protect against ill-treatment, especially the obligation to carry out an effective investigation. 59.     In the light of the above, the complaint is neither manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The substantive aspect (a)     Arguments of the parties 60.     The Government argued that according to the Court’s case-law the reliance on appropriate and proportional physical force during arrest may be justified for the sake of maintaining order and preventing offences. Distinguishing the facts of the present case from those in Ribitsch v.   Austria , 4   December   1995, Series A no. 336; Rehbock v. Slovenia , no.   29462/95, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII and Matko v. Slovenia , no. 43393/98, 2   November   2006, they contended that in this particular case physical force had been used against the applicant only during the course of his arrest when, in the absence of any planned operation and given the small number of police officers present, the unexpected development of the events made it necessary to use certain combat techniques. The Government relied on the fact that before arriving at the relevant address, the police had received information that a serious crime had allegedly been committed and that a victim was still in danger. Moreover, a gun-like object had been within reach of the perpetrators. The Government further emphasised that both at the place of his arrest and later in the police station the applicant had behaved aggressively and provocatively; he had not cooperated with the police and had disobeyed their orders. Relying on Spinov v. Ukraine , no.   34331/03, 27   November   2008, the Government considered that those circumstances had counted heavily against the applicant and therefore the Government’s burden of proof that the use of force had not been excessive became less stringent. 61 .     Concerning the alleged injuries, the Government commented that the light bodily injuries sustained by the applicant had not attained the level of severity necessary for the application of Article 3, whereas it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt or any other sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences, that the fractured ribs had been sustained in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. In this connection, the Government raised doubts about the applicant’s allegations that his ill-treatment while in the police station had lasted for half an hour. According to the police reports, the police had arrived at the apartment after 7.18 a.m. whereas the administrative arrest report had been drawn up at 8 a.m. Moreover, the applicant had not raised any objections concerning the alleged ill-treatment either during his administrative arrest or when he was arrested in the context of the criminal proceedings. The Government also emphasised the consistency of the statements given by police officers K.H. and V.O. on the circumstances of the use of force against the applicant. Lastly, referring to the medico-legal report, the Government noted that it had not been possible to exclude that the bodily injuries the applicant had sustained, namely broken ribs, were not the direct result of physical force applied on the day of the incident but had pre-existed or resulted from another cause. 62.     The applicant’s counsel maintained that the police officers had used disproportionate force. She emphasised that specially trained officers from the special forces unit had been involved in the applicant’s arrest. She also noted that the police officers had not followed the procedure provided for by section 13 of the Law on the Police (see Domestic law above), according to which they should have reported the applicant’s injuries to their superiors, and that the applicant himself had requested medical assistance. 63.     The Government disputed the above allegations, indicating that immediately after the incident the police officers had drawn up a report on the course of events. They invited the Court not to limit its assessment of the circumstances of the present case to the applicant’s allegations, but instead to give due consideration to the factual circumstances and the applicant’s behaviour and personality. (b)     The Court’s assessment 64.     The Court reiterates the well-established principle that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §   87, ECHR 1999 ‑ ). Besides, any allegation of ill ‑ treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence, in assessment of which the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” ( Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, §   161, Series A no. 25). In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (see Tomasi v.   France, 27 August 1992, § 115, Series A no. 241-A). 65.     Even though the Government emphasised that the police officers had used force authorised by section 13 of the Law on the Police only during the applicant