CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 1 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s8CFFFC6C { width:4.24pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC03030BA { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s64FBD507 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE9021CBE { width:184.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF R.R. AND R.D. v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 20649/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Recourse to physical force by police during operation in Roma community • Failure of authorities to show use of force against applicants during course of arrest indispensable and not excessive • Applicants’ injuries most likely caused by beating with batons • Use of force, batons being omitted, recorded retrospectively • Use of batons not justified and use against applicants indicative of presence of repressive element in intervention Art 3 (procedural) • Effective investigation • Potential of new ordered investigation limited by initial failing investigative response due to the time elapsed since impugned facts • Lack of individual and verifiable assessment of the adequacy and necessity of the use of coercive measures against the applicants • Despite significant efforts during subsequent investigation, as a whole, investigation not effective Art 14 (+ Art 3) • Lack of investigation into the alleged discrimination against Roma communities in the planning of the operation • State’s positive obligation to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic prejudice may have played a role in the applicants’ treatment not complied with Art 14 (+ Art 3) • No failure to examine alleged discrimination in execution of operation   STRASBOURG 1 September 2020 FINAL   01/12/2020     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,   and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 20649/18) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Slovak nationals, R.R. and R.D. (“the applicants”), on 25 April 2018; the decision to give notice of the application to the Slovak Government (“the Government”); the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman) of the Slovak Republic and Equity, a non-governmental organisation, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 12 May and 7 July 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     In connection with a large-scale police operation conducted on 19   June 2013 in a Roma-inhabited area in Moldava nad Bodvou, the application concerns allegations that, contrary to the requirements of Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention, (i) the applicants had been mistreated by the police, (ii) the respondent State had failed to conduct an   effective investigation into that mistreatment, (iii) their alleged mistreatment and lack of adequate investigation had been due to their Roma ethnicity, and (iv) they had been denied an effective remedy in that respect. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented by V. Durbáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background 5.     Moldava nad Bodvou is a town and municipality in Košice-okolie district in the south of Košice Region in eastern Slovakia. There is a Roma community living mainly in two blocks of flats and a number of slums on Budulovská Street in this town. The applicants, who are of Roma ethnicity, live in this community. 6.     The events giving rise to the present application revolve around a   police operation carried out on Budulovská St on 19 June 2013. At the domestic level, the operation was classified under the term “action 100”. 7.     As will be explained in detail below, it is in dispute whether the true purpose of this operation was a search for wanted persons and items, as claimed by the Government and indicated in the pertaining documentation, or repression and retaliation for an incident that had occurred in the night from 15 to 16 June 2013 (see paragraph 11 below), as argued by the applicants. 8.     The operation of 19 June 2013 is also the subject matter of a separate application before the Court (no. 14099/18). Another “action 100”, which took place in the municipality of Vrbnica on 2 April 2015, is the subject matter of application no. 57085/18. These applications are still pending before the Court. 9 .     According to a press release issued by the Ombudsman of Slovakia on 14 July 2015 in connection with the said operation in Vrbnica, the number of general search operations carried out in areas with segregated Roma communities was disproportionate compared to the rest of Slovakia. For example, for 2013, 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 there were in total 259 of such operations carried out in the district of Prešov while there were none in Bratislava. Events preceding the operation of 19 June 2013 10.     On 14 June 2013 the Košice-okolie district directorate of the police issued a report on certain extraordinary events and criminal offences recently reported in that district. The Government submitted that this report showed a dramatic crime-rate increase and that this increase had taken place over the entire first half of 2013. They submitted that it had been this report that had formed the basis on which the “action 100” had been subsequently ordered and conducted in the community on Budulovská St in Moldava nad Bodvou. The applicants contested the latter claim as an unsubstantiated allegation. 11 .     On 15 June 2013 there was an event held on Budulovská St to mark the completion of a community project. The official programme was followed by music and dancing which continued into the evening. During this latter part of the event, in the early hours of 16 June 2013, there was an   altercation between members of the community and a motorised police patrol, involving the throwing of stones at the police car. 12.     On 17 June 2013 the head of the district directorate ordered an   “action 100” to be carried out in the community on Budulovská St between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on 19 June 2013. But for one exception, the printed written version of the order refers to the operation as a “repressive search operation”. The word “repressive” has been struck through by hand throughout the document. The Government argued that the strikethrough had been carried out on 18 June 2013 and that it had been a correction of a   typographical error. The applicants argued to the contrary. 13.     The exception where the operation is termed a “search operation” appears in one of the introductory paragraphs, indicating that the “search operation” was necessary because it could be presumed that wanted persons and objects acquired through criminal activities could be found at the target location. 14.     According to a report filed by the commanding officer of the operation on 28 June 2013, the operation was preceded by a briefing held on 19 June 2013 at 6.30 p.m. on the premises of the district directorate, in the course of which the intervention team was handed lists of wanted individuals and was instructed to fill out lists of the people whose identity had been checked. Operation of 19 June 2013 15.     On 19 June 2013 the operation was carried out. The applicants’ individual situations in connection with it and the operation itself may be described as follows. First applicant 16 .     In his own submission, in the evening of 19 June 2013 the first applicant was at home when the police knocked on his door asking him to   identify himself. Before he could do so, they broke his window; some fifteen to twenty officers entered his flat and one of them threw out of the broken window the groceries the first applicant had just brought. The police subsequently handcuffed and dragged him outside, beating him with batons all over his body, throwing him in the mud and making him lie in it, kicking him with military boots and repeatedly striking him with an   electroshock weapon. As a result, he was unable to hold his urine and stool and soiled himself. He admitted to being intoxicated and disoriented, and not understanding. He asked what was going on. He was taken to the police station where for a part of the time he was tied to a wall and abused again with kicks by people in military boots to his ribs and blows to his head and face from gloved hands. The police then took him to a doctor. The latter refused to treat him so the police left him there. 17 .     As regards the medical check-up last mentioned, pursuant to a note issued at 1.23 a.m. on 20 June 2013 by an on-call doctor who had seen the first applicant, the latter did not manifest signs of any injuries that would require medical treatment. 18 .     Nevertheless, another doctor who saw the applicant later that day (20   June 2013) issued a medical report (1.05 p.m.), in which he noted that the first applicant had an initial-stage haematoma on the front and front right side of his face, a cervical spine wrench, a fracture of the tenth rib, and stripe-shaped abrasions and haematomata on both sides of the back of his rib cage. In addition, the doctor noted traces of blood in the first applicant’s urine. The doctor described his injuries as “minor” and assessed that they would take “up to forty-two days” to heal. 19 .     According to a decision of the district directorate of the police of 19   June 2013, following the first applicant’s detention ( zaistenie ) under section 19(1)(b) of the Police Force Act (Law no. 171/1993 Coll., as amended), in the course of the operation the intervening officers encountered the first applicant, who was obviously intoxicated and was shouting and insulting others. As he refused to abide by an instruction to   calm down, he was taken to a police station in order to document what was considered to be a suspicion that he had committed the minor offence of breach of the peace. As he actively resisted, coercive measures had to be applied consisting of holds, grabs, blows and kicks as well as handcuffs. In that connection, a reference was made to sections 51(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 52(1)(a) and (c) of the Police Force Act. As a result of these measures, the first applicant suffered minor injuries. 20 .     Identical observations on the use of coercive measures against the first applicant were included in a report on the use of these measures dated 19 June 2013. Moreover, the report indicated that “blows and kicks in self ‑ defence in order to overcome resistance and repulse assault” within the meaning of section 50(1)(a) and (b) of the Police Force Act had been used and that, while at the police station, the first applicant had had to be attached to the wall since he had actively resisted and attempted to flee. The use of these coercive measures was later examined and found to have been justified by the deputy head of the police in the district. The report however provided no details in that connection. 21.     According to a transcript of his questioning at the police station, in connection with the said suspicion that he had committed a minor offence, the first applicant stated that when the police had arrived in his community he had been consuming alcohol and had been manifestly under the influence. When asked to show his identity card, which he had not had on him, he had asked why he had had to show it and had shouted at the police in rude language. He had resisted the police as he had not wished to go anywhere when they had attempted forcibly to bring him to the police station. He had only suffered minor injuries. 22.     However, the first applicant claimed that he had not had an   opportunity to read the transcript before signing it, that he had accordingly signed it unaware of its content, and that the content had been untrue. 23 .     In a report of 28 August 2014 a forensic medical expert assessed the first applicant’s injuries on the basis of the note of 20 June 2013, photographs of the injuries, the contents of the investigation file, in particular the first applicant’s factual allegations, and the expert’s own examination of the first applicant as follows. 24.     The first applicant had had an isolated fracture of the tenth rib, as a   consequence of a circumscribed angular external impact. Such injuries were most commonly due to falling on and hitting an angular obstacle. As the first applicant had himself submitted that the officers had pushed him into a table, this was how the injury could have been caused. 25 .     The injuries on the first applicant’s back had most likely been caused by blows with a baton. 26.     The other injuries had not been those typically caused by a third person but had rather been of a kind that was often caused by accidentally hitting various obstacles. Very likely those other injuries had been caused randomly in the course of the use of coercive measures against the first applicant and while he had been restrained through holds and grabs. 27.     The expert excluded a targeted attack of several trained officers in the form of kicks, as alleged by the first applicant. Such an attack would have caused much more numerous and much more severe injuries, which in view of his own submissions would moreover have to have been but had not been also on the first applicant’s legs. 28.     The expert also pointed to the fact that there had not been any open wound, excluded accordingly any massive bleeding, and also excluded an   electroshock weapon as a cause of any of the first applicant’s injuries. 29.     In so far as blood had been found in the first applicant’s urine, the expert observed that in the absence of any injuries to the applicant’s internal organs, various causes could be speculated on given that the matter had not been investigated any further. 30 .     In a report of 29 September 2014 a toxicologist assessed the state of the first applicant’s intoxication in the evening of 19 June 2013, finding that during the course of the evening he had progressed from a condition of alcohol poisoning (until 9 p.m. of 19 June 2013), through a state of heavy intoxication (until 1.30 a.m. of 20 June 2013), to a condition of medium intoxication (after 1.30 a.m. of 20 June 2013). Second applicant 31 .     In his own submission, in the course of the operation three or four police officers entered the second applicant’s house and simply ordered him to go out, without asking him to identify himself, but uttering “get out, today Gypsies you will perish”. Once he was in front of the building, the police beat him more than ten times with great intensity and hit him two or three times with an electroshock weapon. He received blows from baton on his right shoulder, his back and the left side of his legs. The police then again entered his house where they broke his television and various pieces of furniture. Once he was taken to the police station, in handcuffs, he was not beaten any more, but he did see police officers hitting and kicking the first applicant. As a result of tight handcuffing he suffered an injury to his right forearm resulting in lasting effects, such as a tingling sensation in his thumb and index finger. 32 .     According to a decision of the district directorate of the police of 19   June 2013 on the second applicant’s detention under section 19(1)(b) of the Police Force Act, in the course of the operation the intervening officers encountered the second applicant, who was shouting loudly and insulting the law and others. As he refused to abide by an instruction to calm down, he had to be taken to the police station in order to document what was considered to be a suspicion that he had committed the minor offence of breach of the peace. Since he actively resisted, coercive measures had to be applied consisting of holds, grabs, blows and kicks as well as handcuffing. In that connection, a reference was made to sections 51(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 52(1)(a) and (c) of the Police Force Act. As a result of these measures, the second applicant suffered minor injuries. 33 .     Identical observations regarding the use of coercive measures against the second applicant were included in a report on the use of these measures dated 19 June 2013. Moreover, the report indicated that “blows and kicks in self ‑ defence in order to overcome resistance and repulse assault” within the meaning of section 50(1)(a) and (b) of the Police Force Act had been used. The use of these coercive measures was later examined and found justified by the head of the police in that district. Similarly as in the case of the first applicant, the report contains no details of that examination and assessment. 34.     The police took the second applicant to an on-call doctor, who, pursuant to a note issued by him at 1.20 a.m. on 20 June 2013, observed that the second applicant did not manifest signs of any injuries that would require medical treatment. 35.     In a statement that a general practitioner later (18 June 2014) made for the purposes of an expert analysis of the second applicant’s injuries, she acknowledged having seen the second applicant on 20 June 2013, when he had stated that he had been beaten with a baton by the police. She observed discolouration on his back and right shoulder and an unrelated older cut on his right forearm. She considered his injuries to be minor. 36.     According to the transcript of the second applicant’s questioning at the police station, which he contested on the same grounds as the first applicant, he submitted that when he had been asked to identify himself in the course of the operation he had given a different name, that he had been shouting at the police, that he had consumed alcohol, that he had resisted being taken to the police station, and that he had suffered no injuries. 37 .     In a report of 17 August 2014 a forensic medical expert assessed the second applicant’s injuries on the basis of the above-mentioned general practitioner’s statement, photographs of those injuries, the contents of the investigation file, in particular the second applicant’s factual allegations, and the expert’s own examination of the second applicant as follows. 38 .     The documented injuries had been caused by external blunt oblong flat object and circumscribed violence in the form of repeated blows with the same object – very probably a baton – of up to medium intensity. The injuries had been minor, and had not necessitated any sick leave and any treatment longer than seven days and had not had any lasting effects. The expert excluded any deterioration of the second applicant’s previous and unrelated cut on his right forearm as a result of the mistreatment he had allegedly suffered at hands of the police, and that an electroshock weapon could have caused any of his injuries. Operation in general 39.     The operation was carried out by sixty-three officers, with twenty three vehicles. Fifteen of the officers were of the rapid-reaction force. The general description of its course by the parties varies as follows. 40.     The applicants submitted that the police had barely been interested in checking the identity of anyone. They had entered random dwellings without authorisation, physically assaulting selected members of the community, uttering racist slurs and using the language of revenge, and had wilfully damaged property. When resorting to coercive measures, the police had used excessive violence, including the use of batons and electroshock weapons. 41.     The Government claimed that the intervening officers had been equipped and armed as for an ordinary on-foot patrol with no special equipment and, specifically and categorically no electroshock weapons or riot guns. They further submitted that there had been no entry into dwellings other than with the consent of those inside, no excess of powers and no abuse, and that any coercive measures had only been used lawfully against those who had failed to abide by the given instructions, actively resisted them or behaved aggressively. 42.     It has not been disputed that in the course of the operation not only the applicants but also some other people were brought to the local police station for the purposes of establishing their identity and owing to the suspicion that by their disorderly conduct in the course of the operation they had committed the minor offence of breach of the peace. The specific numbers of people stated as having been brought to the police station varied up to a maximum of fifteen individuals. 43.     None of the individuals sought was among those taken to the police station and no object originating from criminal activities was found. 44.     According to a file note of the district directorate of 20 June 2013 the operation enabled the localisation and later arrest of one of the wanted people. AFTERMATH OF THE OPERATION OF 19 JUNE 2013 45.     In his report of 28 June 2013 the commander of the operation observed that it had lasted forty minutes and concluded that it had been carried out professionally and in full compliance with the instructions and regulations. In so far as the taking of persons to the police station had necessitated the use of coercive measures, these had been duly recorded. 46.     The operation received wide media coverage, was twice debated on by the parliamentary committee for human rights and national minorities and the Minister of the Interior as well as the Prime Minister were several times reported in the media as having made statements supportive of the operation and of the results of the investigation into it (see below). 47.     On 8 January 2014 the Government passed resolution no. 18, whereby it, inter alia , expressed grave concern over political and media attempts to abuse the topic of the impugned intervention to create an   environment of hostility against the Roma and the police and recommended that the Prosecutor General ensure an independent investigation into the operation. OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT 48 .     On 16 August 2013 the Ombudsman submitted for debate by Parliament an “Extraordinary report by the Ombudsman on facts indicating serious violations of basic rights and freedoms by the actions of certain organs”. The report concerned various aspects of the situation of the Roma population in Slovakia and a part of it concerned specifically the police operation in Moldava nad Bodvou on 19 June 2013 from the perspective of the right to respect for home. 49.     As the Ombudsman specified in her submission before the Court (see paragraph 140 below), the report had been preceded by an   investigation by her staff, which had included an on-site inspection between 17 and 19   July 2013, interviews with a number of affected members of the Budulovská St community and various officials, and an   examination of documentary evidence. 50.     In the relevant part, the Ombudsman noted that although the proclaimed aim of the operation had been the search for wanted persons and objects, there had been a number of factors calling into question the authenticity of that aim, the urgency, necessity and efficiency of the operation and the adequacy of its planning and of the means employed. INVESTIGATION Initial investigation (eastern unit of the Inspection Service) 51.     Between 20 June and 17 July 2013 three criminal complaints and one application for a review of the lawfulness of the operation were lodged, including by the first applicant. 52.     These complaints fell to be examined by the Office of the Inspection Service ( Úrad inšpekčnej služby – hereinafter “the Inspection Service”) of the Section of Inspection and Audit of the Ministry of the Interior ( Sekcia kontroly a inšpekčnej služby Ministerstva vnútra ). Within the Inspection Service, it was the eastern unit ( Odbor inšpekčnej služby Východ ), based in Košice, that had territorial competence in the matter. 53.     In his criminal complaint, the first applicant submitted, inter alia , that there had been the risk that investigators of the eastern unit of the Inspection Service might be connected to the intervening officers under suspicion. He had demanded therefore that, in order to ensure objective and impartial investigation, the investigation had had to be carried out by a   different unit of the Inspection Service. 54.     On 16 August 2013, in response to the first applicant’s request, the head of the Inspection Service decided not to remove the eastern unit from the investigation as he had found no important reasons for doing so. 55.     On 23 August 2013 the eastern unit of the Inspection Service dismissed the first applicant’s criminal complaint. It referred to documentation concerning the first applicant’s case (see, in particular, paragraphs 17 et seq . below) and noted that he had been heavily intoxicated. This as well as other factors had lowered the credibility of his allegations. In sum, it was found that his injuries had been the result of the legitimate and proportionate use of coercive measures against him. 56 .     The first applicant challenged this decision by lodging an   interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) and, once that appeal was dismissed, applied for a review of the decision dismissing it (see the subsequent paragraph). In sum, he disagreed with the investigator’s findings of fact and overall conclusions, arguing that the investigation had been insufficient, one-sided and short of the requisite independence and stating that “a racist motive [could] not be excluded”. 57.     The first applicant’s interlocutory appeal and application for review were dismissed by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) at the Košice-okolie district prosecutor’s level (17 October 2013) and the Košice regional prosecutor’s level (9 January 2014), respectively. 58 .     However, in a letter of 9 May 2014, in response to another complaint by the first applicant, a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General acknowledged that in dealing with the first applicant’s criminal complaint, interlocutory appeal and application for review the Inspection Service and the PPS had proceeded “inadequately” and had reached erroneous decisions. While these shortcomings were not specified in any detail, no corrective measures were ordered since the situation had meanwhile been rectified by the decision of 20 January 2014 to commence criminal proceedings in the case (see paragraph 61 below). Subsequent investigation (central-Slovakia unit of the Inspection Service) 59 .     On 27 November 2013 the Prosecutor General ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the operation of 19 June 2013 and ruled that it would be supervised by the Prešov regional prosecutor’s office. The Government submitted that in the subsequent course of the proceedings the regional prosecutor’s office had periodically and in total on nine occasions reported on the progress of the investigation to the Office of the Prosecutor General. 60.     On 15 January 2014 the head of the Inspection Service ruled that the investigation would be carried out by the central-Slovakia unit of the Inspection Service ( Odbor inšpekčnej služby Stred ), based in Banská Bystrica. According to the Government, this way of organising the procedure gave rise to logistical challenges and special arrangements had to be put in place to ensure efficiency. 61 .     On 20 January 2014 an investigator of the central-Slovakia unit opened a   criminal investigation into the operation on the suspicion that one or more officers unknown had committed the offences, inter alia , of abuse of official authority, actual bodily harm and inflicting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in connection with the planning and carrying out of the operation itself and the treatment of the people taken to and kept at the police station following the operation. 62 .     The ensuing investigation involved questioning more than 280 witnesses, conducting seven face-to-face interviews, almost forty identity parades, and one investigative experiment, and obtaining reports from more than eighty expert witnesses. In addition, extensive documentary evidence was obtained and examined and the investigation file amounted to more than 6,000 pages. 63.     As for the applicants themselves, they were interviewed by the investigator on 20 and 21 February 2014, respectively. Moreover, they were involved in an identity parade and face-to-face interviews and expert evidence was obtained in respect of their injuries and state of intoxication (see paragraphs 23, 30 and 37 above) as well as psychological profiles (dated 17 November 2014 in respect of the first applicant and 10 January 2015 in respect of the second applicant). Conclusion of the investigation 64.     The investigation ultimately resulted in two separate decisions (23   November 2015 and 22 March 2016), both taken by an investigator of the central-Slovakia unit of the Inspection Service, dealing with various parts of the offences allegedly committed on the applicants and others in the context of the operation of 19 June 2013. Decision of 23 November 2015 65.     The first decision was dated 23 November 2015 and in so far as relevant concerned the charges of abuse of official authority and inflicting torture, inhuman and degrading treatment in connection with planning and commanding the operation of 19 June 2013 and the treatment of the applicants and others during their transfer to and detention at the local police station. 66.     The investigator found that the decision leading to the operation of 19 June 2013 had been taken on 14 June 2013 (a Friday), and that a written version of the respective order had been produced on 17 June 2013 (a   Monday) after the weekend that had lain in between. In addition to the simple timeline, this perspective also showed that there had been no direct correlation between the incident of the night from 15 to 16 June 2013 and the operation of 19 June 2013. 67.     The operation had taken place within the framework of Regulation of the Ministry of the Interior no. 53/07 and Order of the director of the police force no. 36/1999, as amended by Order of the director of the police force no. 18/2003. This legislation envisaged no “repressive search operations”, which was a further reason why the character of the operation of 19 June 2013 could not have been repressive. As clearly demonstrated by templates previously used in the context of similar operations, the term “repressive” appeared in the order of 17 June 2013 as a linguistic relic by a   purely clerical error, which had duly been corrected prior to the operation of 19 June 2013. Moreover, the overall content of the order of 17 June 2013 had left no doubt that the purpose of the operation of 19 June 2013 had been the search for individuals and objects. 68.     The operation had not been of the type “under a single command”, which meant that the use of coercive measures had not been ordered by a   central authority but had depended on the individual assessment of the intervening officers. 69.     In 2013 there had been forty-two assaults of police officers in the given region and in none of those instances had there been any unlawful reprisals. 70.     It was accordingly excluded that the operation had been any form of retaliation for the incident of the night from 15 to 16 June 2013. 71.     In so far as there should have been any racial element, the respective allegations were twofold. 72 .     First, three police officers assigned to the area where Budulovská St was located should have had a long-term tense relationship with the local community. These tensions should have escalated in consequence of the incident of the night from 15 to 16 June 2013 and this should have resulted in the operation’s being a retaliation for that incident. This allegation was in essence already rebutted by the arguments and findings concerning the purpose of the operation. Moreover, an examination of the three officers by an expert in psychology revealed no prejudice, bias or intolerance with regard to minorities. 73 .     Second, a member of the Budulovská St community arrested following the incident of the night from 15 to 16 June 2013 submitted that a   police officer escorting him on 19 June 2013 to a remand judge should have uttered that “today the settlement burns down”. This allegation was supported by that individual’s brother. In that respect, the investigator had examined in detail the statements of those involved, had held a face-to-face interview among them and had taken into account evidence from an expert in psychology. The alleged sequence of events was incongruent. The versions of the inculpating witnesses excluded each other. Their principal allegation was not supported by any other elements. According to expert evidence, these witnesses had a pronounced tendency to distort facts and mislead and even deceive. In addition, it was implausible that, by making the alleged remark, the officer in question would reveal and thereby jeopardise an operation that was to be conducted later that day. 74.     The investigator also reacted at length to the Ombudsman’s report, finding her conclusions unsubstantiated and arbitrary. 75 .     As to the applicants themselves, the investigator noted the first applicant’s state of inebriation and observed typical signs of that state as established by an expert (see paragraph 30 below). He also noted what he considered to be incongruities and irregularities in the evidence given by the first applicant and noted that the second applicant had initially alleged that he had suffered an injury to his right hand, while it had later been established that the second applicant had sustained that injury prior to the operation of 19 June 2013, which the investigator interpreted as wilfully making a false accusation. Appeal against the decision of 23 November 2015 76 .     The applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ), challenging the decision of 23 November 2015 as arbitrary, premature and unsusceptible to review on account of lack of reasoning. Among other arguments, they contended that in view of the status of the Inspection Service and in connection with the public pronouncements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, the investigation had not been independent. They also complained that the actual investigation had commenced only a significant period after the operation, that this had determined its potential and influenced its outcome, that the investigator’s assessment of the evidence had in general been one-sided in favour of the official version, that his findings had been arbitrary, that he had failed adequately to examine the potential racist aspect of the case and that he had failed to investigate property the necessity and proportionality of the use of the coercive measures during the operation. 77 .     In a decision of 16 February 2016 the Prešov regional prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It fully upheld the challenged decision and endorsed the reasons behind it, complementing the reasoning as follows. The applicants’ central argument concerned the institutional and hierarchical status of the Inspection Service. That matter had been addressed by a unifying decision of the Criminal Law Bench of the Supreme Court (see paragraphs 113 et seq . below) and the present case had on the specific facts to   be distinguished from that of Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (no. 23944/04, 16 February 2012). 78.     In particular, the prosecutor noted the extent of the investigation (see paragraph 62 above) and the fact that it had been conducted with exemplary level of respect for procedural rights of those concerned. 79.     In his decision, the prosecutor noted that in order to ensure a   thorough independent investigation he himself had taken part in a great many of the interviews and other investigative steps. In view of the sheer intensity of the media attention attracted by the investigation he had not tolerated any executive or other improper interference with it. He concluded that the investigation conducted by the central-Slovakia unit of the Inspection Service, based in Banská Bystrica under the direct supervision of the Prešov regional prosecutor’s office and further supervision of the Office of the Prosecutor General, had been compatible with all requirements of lawfulness and independence. 80.     As to the timeliness of the investigation, the prosecutor noted that, despite a massive long-lasting media campaign portraying the operation of 19 June 2013 in a negative light, there had been no fresh criminal complaints or other official applications lodged after the termination of the initial investigation. The order of the Prosecutor General of 27 November 2013 that a criminal investigation be opened (see paragraph 59 above) had accordingly been issued on his own initiative after having received no earlier than on 14 October 2013 new evidence from the Ombudsman. 81.     The investigator had examined in detail all the depositions and had identified what he considered to be profound incongruities not only between the versions of the alleged victims and the others but also among the alleged victims’ versions themselves. Therefore, even if the investigated officers’ version should have been disregarded as purposive, that of the applicants could not have been sustained. 82.     In the prosecutor’s assessment, in the climate of that time it was impossible to imagine that the alleged victims could have been abused as they alleged in the corridors of Moldava nad Bodvou police station, where officers of other units could have randomly passed and could have witnessed and recorded such treatment. 83.     The presence and use of any electroshock devices in the operation had been excluded by expert and other evidence. Moreover, the applicants’ allegations in that regard were totally devoid of any logic by the nature of things such as the type and size of such devices, the method of operating them, their performance and other tactical considerations. 84.     The prosecutor noted that in the course of the operation the intervening officers had dealt with a   number of heavily intoxicated individuals and that, except for the case of the first applicant, this had caused no complications. This in his view indicated that there had not been any inclination to resort to the use of coercive measures without good cause. 85 .     The prosecutor noted that no racist motive had been alleged in the previous course of the proceedings, the allegations as to the motive of the operation mainly having concentrated on the alleged revenge for the incident of 16   June 2013. Nevertheless, neither the fact that the targeted area had been inhabited by predominantly a Roma population nor any other factor revealed any racist motive in the planning and implementation of the operation. 86.     Overall, the investigator considered as the most trustworthy and generally corresponding to his own findings the deposition from a member of the local council, who was of Roma ethnicity and who had been present on the scene shortly after the operation and who had submitted not having seen any evidence of injuries or damaged dwellings and property. 87.     The prosecutor concluded that, in the circumstances, there was no appearance of any grounds for pressing any charges against members of the police in connection with the operation of 19 June 2013 on Budulovská St. Decision of 22 March 2016 88.     On 22 March 2016 the investigator terminated the proceedings with regard to the remaining charges, which included that of abuse of official authority in connection with the carrying out of the operation on Budulovská St itself. He concluded that the alleged actions of the police either had not been established or had not amounted to a criminal offence. In addition to other matters that had already been taken into account in the decision of 23 November 2015, as to the individual cases of the applicants, the investigator relied first of all on the official records and expert evidence (see, in particular, paragraphs 17 et seq . and 32 et seq . above). He noted that the police had applied coercive measures against them. As later noted and evaluated by the respective superiors, the use of such measures had been warranted by the applicants’ own resistance to the police and it had been legitimate, proportionate and lawful. The investigator noted in extensive detail the incongruities in the applicants’ own submission at various stages of the proceedings at hand as well as in the minor-offence proceedings against them. He also noted what he found to be fundamental incoherence between the applicants’ version and other evidence, including expert evidence. The investigator concluded that all verifiable elements of fact submitted by the applicants had proven to be untrue or distorted. 89.     In his view, it was impossible in the modern technical era and in the circumstances to have committed the alleged excesses without any video or audio footage of them on mobile telephone devices to confirm that they had actually taken place. Any allegations that the police themselves had destroyed the telephones with recording devices of the residents of Budulovská St had been disproved. And it was equally relevant that no video footage had been made immediately following the departure of the police. 90.     Last but not least, the investigator noted that in view of the intense media coverage of the affair, the municipality of Moldava nad Bodvou had decided to finance repairs on dwellings in Budulovská St without investigating who had been responsible. This explained the motivation of the residents to declare any state of disrepair on their houses as having been caused by the police. However, photographic material in the file showed the location in desolate state of disrepair already before the operation of 19 June 2013. Appeal against the decision of 22 March 2016 91 .     The applicants challenged the decision of 22 March 2016 by way of an interlocutory appeal, advancing similar arguments as in their interlocutory appeal against the decision of 23 November 2015 (see paragraph 76 above). As to the alleged “possible racist motive” in the actions of the suspected officers, the applicants pointed out that all the alleged victims had been Roma and that the officers’ motivation might have been to do with the victims’ ethnicity. 92.     On 19 May 2016 the regional prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaint, essentially on the same grounds as in the decision of 16 February 2016 (see paragraph 77 above). FINAL DECISION (CONSTITUTIONAL COURT) 93.     On 18 April and 19 July 2016 the applicants challenged the termination of the proceeding by way of two separate complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution with