CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s223139AF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4030DF6D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3E326BD9 { width:12.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB7100147 { width:9.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s310CB710 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s84CD1D0D { width:9.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s639B43D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s2DAE615E { width:6.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCFBA52B5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s726BE6B4 { width:4.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB998B5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEA32F4F3 { width:4.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAC2C0C24 { width:2.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s365F7A77 { width:189.64pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD01ECF9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sAF205D62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF ZLIČIĆ v. SERBIA (Applications nos. 73313/17 and 20143/19)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody and failure to conduct effective investigation, not remedied by awarding inadequate sum of compensation Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Overall fairness of criminal hearing in spite of search seizure certificate obtained through inhuman and degrading treatment • Certificate not relied upon to secure applicant’s conviction and having no bearing on the outcome of the proceedings • Seizure certificate not amounting to a statement given by the applicant, but a formal written acknowledgment of seizure of a certain substance from him • Applicant having and using opportunity to freely give statements during proceedings   STRASBOURG 26 January 2021 FINAL   26/04/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zličić v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Aleš Pejchal,   Egidijus Kūris,   Branko Lubarda,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   73313/17 and 20143/19) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Serbian national, Mr Aleksandar Zličić (“the applicant”), on 7 October 2017 and 6   April 2019 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints made under Articles 3, 6 and   13 of the Convention, raised in applications nos. 73313/17 and 20143/19, as well as to declare inadmissible the remainder of application no.   20143/19; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1 December 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern allegations of the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police, the respondent State’s alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation into this incident or to provide the applicant with adequate constitutional redress, and, lastly, the fairness of the related criminal proceedings which were subsequently brought against the applicant. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Novi Sad. He was represented before the Court by Ms   S.   Đorđević, a lawyer practising in the same town. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar. events of 10 January 2014 and other related developments and proceedings The facts as presented by the applicant 4 .     On 10 January 2014 at around 10   p.m. the applicant and his friend   G.K. were sitting on a bench close to the building where the latter had been living at the time, when two plain-clothes police officers approached them and asked them to show their identity cards. One of the police officers then went behind the bench and, while holding a small plastic bag ( kesicu ) in his hand asked them: “Whose bag is this? Is it yours?” The applicant and his friend replied that they neither knew whose bag it was nor what was in it. The police officers then searched them and took them to the Novi   Sad police station. 5 .     During his questioning at the police station, the applicant was ill ‑ treated in order to elicit a confession. Specifically, four police officers repeatedly punched him in the head and the abdomen and one of those police officers, S.D., threatened to detain him for a period of forty-eight hours and to inform his employer thereof. The same police officer also said that he would harass the applicant’s parents and his cohabitee and break into his flat and search it. At one point, the applicant was forced to remove all of his clothes, but was then allowed to get dressed again. Fearing additional police abuse, the applicant ultimately signed a document confirming seizure of the small plastic bag in question (“the seizure certificate”). The interview lasted for more than an hour, following which the applicant was released. 6 .     On 12 January 2014, at around 1.30 p.m., the applicant went to the accident and emergency unit of the Vojvodina Clinical Centre ( Urgentni centar Kliničkog centra Vojvodine ), together with his lawyer and G.K. The doctor who examined the applicant diagnosed a contusion of the head and face, and a contusion of the left eyeball. On the same day an ophthalmologist of the Vojvodina Clinical Centre found that the applicant had suffered corneal erosion. Lastly, on 14   January 2014 the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist and a neuropsychiatrist in the Novi Sad Health Centre ( Dom zdravlja ). The ophthalmologist diagnosed mild hyperaemia and an issue with the epithelium of the cornea, while the neuropsychiatrist concluded that the applicant had been suffering from a   reaction to a severely stressful situation and an “adaptation disorder”. 7.     On 21 January 2014 the applicant lodged, through his lawyer and with the first-instance public prosecutor’s office ( Osnovno javno tužilaštvo ) in Novi   Sad, a criminal complaint against S.D. and three other unidentified police officers concerning the events of 10 January 2014. 8.     On 20 February 2014 the first-instance public prosecutor’s office requested that the internal investigation unit of the police ( Sektor unutrašnje kontrole policije – “the internal investigation unit”) carry out an investigation. 9 .     On 19 and 24 March 2014 the internal investigation unit, notably its office in Novi Sad, interviewed, among other people, the applicant and his cohabitee, as well as G.K. and G.K.’s father J.K. 10 .     The applicant recounted the abuse which he had suffered while in police custody and stated that Officer S.D. had been one of the police officers who had ill ‑ treated him. He also recognised two other officers from the photographs shown to him, but could not confirm whether they had punched him because he had not been able to see anything after he had received the first blow to the head. The applicant added that on 10   January 2014 he had sustained the injuries listed in the medical reports. Fearing additional police abuse, however, he had not gone to the hospital immediately upon release but had done so on 12 January 2014 together with his lawyer. 11 .     G.K., the applicant’s friend who had also been arrested on the same occasion, stated that he had seen when Officer S.D. had punched the applicant in the head, that is to say on his left temple, and added that he too had been physically and psychologically abused by the police in order to extort his statement, including by Officer S.D. G.K. had not lodged a   criminal complaint because that would have involved additional stress and his wife had not wanted them to go through this. 12 .     The applicant’s cohabitee, S.Đ., stated, inter alia , that the applicant had come home at around midnight on 10 January 2014 and that she had observed swelling on his left eyelid. The applicant had said that he had been beaten by the police during questioning at the police station and that he had known the identity of one of the police officers involved, a certain S.D. The applicant’s cohabitee provided the internal investigation unit with photographs of the applicant’s face which she had taken one day after his release, in the evening of 11   January 2014. The photographs showed some swelling and redness around the applicant’s left eye and cheekbone. 13 .     J.K. recounted, inter alia , that he had been in front of the police station when his son, G.K., had been released. He had noticed redness in the area of his son’s cheekbone and skin abrasions on one of his legs. His son had also told him that he had been punched and ill-treated by the police, and that one of the police officers involved had been S.D. 14 .     On 10 July 2014 the first-instance public prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint, finding that there were no grounds to suspect that a criminal offence subject to public prosecution had been committed. In so doing, it accepted the police officers’ version of events as fully credible (see paragraphs 19 and 20 below). It also noted that J.K. and the applicant’s cohabitee had not had any direct knowledge of what had happened in the police station. 15 .     On 7 November 2014 the high public prosecutor’s office ( Više javno tužilaštvo ) in Novi Sad upheld this decision and its reasoning. It furthermore noted that the internal investigation unit, for its part, had been absolutely impartial in the performance of its duties. The first-instance public prosecutor’s office was therefore justified in concluding that there were no grounds to suspect that the officers in question, acting in an official capacity, had used force, threats or other inadmissible means with intent to extort a confession or any other statement from the applicant. 16 .     On 8 January 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( ustavna žalba ). He described the alleged police abuse of 10   January 2014, submitted medical reports corroborating his allegations thereof, and maintained that such police conduct and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard, by the police as well as the public prosecution service, had clearly amounted to a breach of his right to physical and mental integrity as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution (see paragraph 39 below). The applicant, in this context, also referred to his right to a fair trial, the prohibition of discrimination and the obligation to treat all detained persons with dignity, as guaranteed under Articles 32, 21 and 28 of the Constitution respectively. The applicant, lastly, complained about the public prosecutor’s ultimate rejection of his criminal complaint and his refusal to press charges against the police officers involved. 17 .     On 9 June 2017 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the applicant had essentially complained about the rejection of his complaint by the public prosecution service and that he had done so in connection with the right to a fair trial. However, given the legal nature and the content of those rejections, the Constitutional Court opined that they could not be considered as individual acts against which a constitutional appeal could be lodged on the basis of Article 170 of the Constitution (see paragraph 39 below). In particular, the court noted, inter alia , that a criminal complaint was merely an “initial step” aimed at clarifying the allegations in question and that as such it did not mean that criminal charges always had to follow. A prosecutorial rejection of a   criminal complaint could not therefore amount to a breach of any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The facts as presented by the Government 18 .     The Government disputed the applicant’s description of what had taken place on 10 January 2014, contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 10-13 above, and furnished additional details. 19 .     In particular, they did so on the basis of the written statements prepared by Officers S.D. and N.A. on 15 January 2014 and the subsequent testimony provided by Officers S.D., N.A., G.R., M.Š., S.M. and G.C. between 21 and 25 March 2014 and as part of the investigation carried out by the internal investigation unit. 20 .     According to these sources, on 10   January 2014 two police officers, S.M., and G.C., had approached the applicant and his friend, G.K., who were sitting on the bench in front of a building. They had done so because they could smell cannabis in the air. At the same time, Officer G.C. had noticed that the applicant had dropped something onto the ground. The officers had then asked the two men to show their identity cards. While searching them, Officer G.C. had found on the ground, next to the applicant, a plastic bag with dried plant matter resembling cannabis. On the applicant’s person, Officer G.C. had also found rolling paper used for making cigarettes. The officers had then taken the applicant and G.K. to the Novi   Sad police station. While in the station, neither the applicant nor G.K. had been ill-treated. The applicant had not given a formal statement but had “informally” said that the plastic bag at issue was his and that he had thrown it away when he had seen the police officers approaching him. 21 .     While in the police station, the officers had also provided the applicant with a seizure certificate in respect of the said plastic bag together with its contents, some 5 g in all, and the applicant had signed this document of his own free will. Following this, the applicant had been photographed and his fingerprints and palm prints had been taken by the police. The applicant had also been informed that the plastic bag and its contents would be sent for forensic examination and that if the examination confirmed that cannabis was in the bag, criminal charges would be pressed. 22 .     The police likewise questioned G.K. on 10 January 2014 about the events which had taken place that evening. An official interview record was prepared and G.K. signed it. The document stated, inter alia , that G.K. had denied knowing anything about the plastic bag in question or its contents but noted that he had no objections as to the conduct of the police officers in question. 23.     On 30 January 2014 the first-instance public prosecutor’s office ordered that the said expert examination be carried out, and on 6 August 2014 the experts found that the substance in question was 4.23 g of cannabis. criminal charges subsequently brought against the applicant and other related proceedings 24 .     On 22 July 2015 the applicant was questioned by the police on charges of unauthorised possession of narcotics. In the presence of counsel, the applicant stated that on 10 January 2014 the police had found a small plastic bag on the ground behind the bench where he and his friend had been sitting but that that bag did not belong to them. The applicant also stated that he had signed the seizure certificate issued in respect of the said bag under duress. 25 .     Between 22 July 2015 and 11 March 2016 the first-instance public prosecutor’s office took statements from the applicant and G.K., as well as the police officers concerned, all of whom essentially repeated their respective accounts given earlier. In so doing, Officer G.C. reiterated that as he and his colleague had approached the applicant and his friend he had noticed that the applicant had lowered something onto the ground and that this turned out to be a plastic bag containing cannabis. Officer S.M. also largely repeated his earlier statement but specified, inter alia , that he remembered that the applicant and G.K. had been asked to show their identity cards and empty their pockets and that it was at this point that a   small plastic bag had been dropped onto the ground by one of them. 26 .     On 13 June 2016 the first-instance public prosecutor’s office indicted the applicant for the criminal offence of unauthorised possession of narcotics for personal use in connection with the events of 10 January 2014. The indictment stated, inter alia , that the applicant had hidden 4.23 g of cannabis in his underwear. 27 .     On 30 January 2017 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud u Novom Sadu ) found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of one year. The court accepted the subsequently amended indictment to the effect that the applicant had been in possession of a plastic bag containing 4.23 g of cannabis and had then dropped it onto the ground when he had seen the police approaching. The court also admitted into evidence the seizure certificate and the expert’s opinion to the effect that the substance in the plastic bag had indeed been cannabis. Officers G.C. and S.M., who had arrested the applicant, essentially repeated in court their statements given earlier, adding, inter alia , that the plastic bag had been found on the ground very close to the applicant’s foot and that there had been no other objects there. The street lights had also been bright and the visibility had been good. Officer S.M., however, made no specific reference to at what point exactly and by whom the plastic bag had been dropped onto the ground. The applicant and G.K. likewise repeated their earlier statements, including their allegations of police abuse. The court ultimately concluded that there was adequate evidence that the applicant had been arrested while in possession of a banned substance, “accepted the officers’ account of the events in question”, especially in the absence of any reasons as to why they would otherwise have engaged in the planting of evidence, and dismissed the statements given by G.K. and the applicant as aimed at avoiding the latter’s criminal responsibility. The court added that it had not based its conclusions as to the applicant’s possession of cannabis on the seizure certificate itself but on the officers’ own testimony in that connection. It was hence irrelevant for those proceedings as to whether the seizure certificate had been signed under duress or not. Lastly, the court refused to admit into evidence the applicant’s criminal complaint, or the medical or any other evidence of police abuse allegedly suffered by applicant, since, inter alia , that too did not relate to the charges brought against him. 28 .     On 2 March 2017 the applicant and his lawyer lodged separate appeals against this judgment, arguing, inter alia , that: (a) there was simply no evidence that the applicant had been in possession of a banned substance, as anyone could have left the bag in question in the public space where the applicant had been arrested; (b) it had never been established that the applicant had been a user of cannabis; (c) the officers’ statements themselves had not been consistent but had nevertheless been accepted by the court as decisive, while compelling statements which had been given by the applicant and G.K. had simply been ignored; (d) the seizure certificate itself had been signed under duress; (e) the evidence of the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police had not been admitted; and (f) the charges against the applicant had only been brought once the applicant had lodged his criminal complaint against the officers who had abused him. 29 .     On 11 July 2017 the Novi Sad High Court ( Viši sud u Novom Sadu ) upheld the judgment rendered at first instance as well as its reasoning. 30 .     On 9 November 2017 the Supreme Court of Cassation ( Vrhovni kasacioni sud ) rejected the applicant’s further request for the protection of legality ( zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti ) lodged against the High Court’s judgment of 11 July 2017. In its reasoning the Supreme Court of Cassation noted, inter alia , that the fact that the applicant had been in possession of cannabis had been established on the basis of the police officers’ testimony and “not solely based on” the seizure certificate. According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, it was therefore obvious that even in the absence of the said written evidence the same judgment would have been rendered. 31.     In the meantime, on 24 August 2017, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. He relied on the arguments already raised earlier in the course of the criminal proceedings, arguing that all that had, inter alia , amounted to breach of his right to a fair trial. 32.     On 12 October 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the criminal courts. In addition, it explained that it was not its role to review the case as yet another appellate court but to ascertain whether there had been a breach of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. In the present case, the Constitutional Court concluded that there had been none. 33.     On 5 November 2019 the Ministry of Internal Affairs ( Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova ) issued a decision on the applicant’s rehabilitation, given that the applicant had not had any convictions before the judgment of 30   January 2017, and, furthermore, that he had not committed any new criminal offences thereafter. Civil proceedings brought by the applicant 34 .     In his written submissions of 22 September 2019 the applicant informed the Court of the civil proceedings which he had brought in connection with his alleged police abuse of 10 January 2014. 35 .     In particular, on 9 January 2017 the applicant lodged a claim against the respondent State and its Ministry of Internal Affairs, seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on that occasion. 36.     The respondent State, in its written response ( odgovor na tužbu ), contested the applicant’s claim, adding that it was important to note the extent to which the applicant had contributed to the “occurrence of the damage” in question. 37 .     On 27 September 2017 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay him 80,000 Serbian dinars (RSD) for the physical pain suffered and RSD 100,000 for the fear endured as a consequence of the police ill-treatment (some 670 euros (EUR) and EUR   835 respectively) as well as another RSD 72,500 (approximately EUR   605) on account of the costs and expenses, all with statutory interest. In its reasoning, inter alia , the court accepted the applicant’s allegations of police abuse, including that he had signed the seizure certificate owing to the ill-treatment in question, and stated that all this had amounted to a breach of his constitutional rights as well as his rights and freedoms guaranteed by ratified international treaties, including the right to be treated with dignity and not to be subjected to violence while in police custody or to have his statement extorted. The issue of the “applicant’s contribution to the occurrence of the damage in question”, as raised by the respondent, was deemed by the court as immaterial since the fact that the applicant had been suspected of having committed a crime could not have justified his abuse. In any event, there was no evidence that the applicant had done anything that could have justified the use of force against him. Lastly, the court noted that in the meantime the applicant had been convicted of the offence of unauthorised possession of narcotics but that that was a separate issue and had no bearing on its ruling as regards the pain and fear suffered by him as a consequence of the police ill-treatment in question. 38 .     On 25 April 2018, following appeals lodged by the parties, the Novi Sad Appeals Court ( Apelacioni sud ) upheld this judgment and its reasoning, but reduced the damages for the fear endured by the applicant and the costs and expenses incurred to RSD 70,000 and RSD 60,500 (approximately EUR 590 and EUR 510, respectively). It further decided that no statutory interest had to be paid in respect of the costs and expenses awarded. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ( Ustav Republike Srbije , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – n o . 98/06 ) 39 .     The relevant provisions read as follows: Article 25 “1.   Everyone’s physical and mental integrity shall be inviolable. 2.   Nobody may be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor subjected to medical and other experiments without their free consent.” Article 170 “A constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of State bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed.” Constitutional Court Act ( Zakon o Ustavnom sudu , published in OG RS n o . 109/07, amendments published in OG RS N os . 99/11, 18/13, 40/15 AND 103/15) 40 .     Article 84 § 1 provides that a constitutional appeal may be lodged within a period of thirty days as of the date of receipt of the individual decision in question or the date when the impugned actions took place. Constitutional Court’s opinion of 30 October 2008 and 2 April 2009 41 .     The Constitutional Court is, under Article 170 of the Constitution (see paragraph 39 above above), also entitled to rule on a constitutional appeal if no other legal remedy has been prescribed, meaning if “judicial protection has been excluded” or if “no other legal redress has been provided”. 42 .     The Constitutional Court ruled that the deadline for the submission of a constitutional appeal, as set out in Article 84 § 1 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 40 above), started running, inter alia , as follows: (a)   on the date of receipt of the impugned decision adopted in respect of the last remedy pursued; (b) as regards an impugned action, on the date when the action in question had been taken or had ceased; and (c) with respect to an impugned omission, depending on the specific circumstances of the case as well as the conduct of the appellant and the authority at issue. Constitutional Court’s case-law 43 .     In decisions Už-788/09, Už-10465/13, Už-8236/17 and Už-9113/17, of 29 September 2011, 7 April 2015, 26 September 2018 and 8   November 2018, respectively, decisions Už-10036/17, Už-10356/17, Už-10400/17, all adopted on 27 November 2018, and decisions Už-5336/16 and Už-8201/16, both rendered on 24 December 2018, the Constitutional Court, dismissed, inter alia , the appellants’ complaints concerning the rejection of their respective criminal complaints by the public prosecution service on the basis that a criminal complaint was merely an “initial step” aimed at clarifying the allegations in questions and that as such it did not mean that criminal charges always had to follow. The Constitutional Court therefore held that a prosecutorial rejection of their criminal complaints, lodged in various contexts albeit not in the context of police abuse, could not amount to a breach of any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. 44 .     In decision Už-3361/16 of 14 November 2018 the appellant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police was dismissed as belated, having been lodged more than thirty days after the alleged abuse had taken place. At the same time, the appellant’s related complaint concerning the rejection of his criminal complaint by the public prosecution service after that was dismissed on the same basis as described in paragraph 43 above in fine . Constitutional Court’s decision Už-4100/11 of 10   July2013 45 .     In this decision the Constitutional Court found, inter alia , a substantive and a procedural violation of the appellant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution (see paragraph 39 above), ordered an effective investigation into the ill-treatment perpetrated by prison guards and awarded the appellant EUR 1,000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in that connection. In the appellant’s constitutional appeal he had complained of the abuse carried out by State agents and the subsequent failure of the relevant authorities to carry out an effective official investigation. Criminal Code ( Krivični zakonik , published in OG RS n o .   85/05, amendments published in OG RS N os . 88/05, 107/05, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13 and 108/14) 46 .     The relevant provisions read as follows: 122 §§ 1 and 4 (Slight Bodily Harm) “1. Whoever inflicts slight bodily harm on or causes minor health impairment to another, shall be punished with a fine or imprisoned for up to one year. ... 4. The offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may be prosecuted on the basis of a private [criminal] action ... [brought by the victim personally].” Article 136 (Extortion of a Statement) “1.   Whoever acting in an official capacity uses force or threat[s] or other inadmissible means ... with intent to extort a confession or another statement from an accused, a witness, an expert witness or another person, shall be punished with imprisonment of from three months to five years. 2.   If the extortion of a confession or of a statement is aggravated by extreme violence or if the extortion of a statement results in particularly serious consequences for the accused in a criminal case, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of from two to ten years.”          Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakonik o krivičnom postupku , published in OG RS n o . 72/11, amendments published in Og RS N os . 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13 and 55/14) 47.     Article 9 prohibits, inter alia , any use of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, or of force, threats and/or coercion, with the aim of extorting a confession or any other statement from the accused or another person taking part in the proceedings. 48.     Articles 5, 6 and 51 taken together provide, inter alia , that for criminal offences which are subject to prosecution ex proprio motu , such as, for example, the offence of extortion of a confession, the authorised prosecutor is the public prosecutor personally. The said official’s authority to decide whether to press charges, however, is bound by the principle of legality which requires that he or she must act whenever there is a   reasonable suspicion that a crime subject to prosecution ex propriu motu has been committed. Should the public prosecutor dismiss a criminal complaint lodged in respect of such an offence, he or she must inform the victim of this decision, who may then lodge an objection with the immediately higher public prosecutor, within eight days as of the date of notification. The immediately higher prosecutor may reject or accept the objection but no appeal or objection is allowed against that decision. Should the immediately higher public prosecutor decide to accept the objection, he or she must issue a mandatory instruction to the competent public prosecutor to start a prosecution or continue therewith.        Police Act ( Zakon o policiji , published in OG RS n o . 101/05, amendments published in OG RS N os . 63/09, 92/11 and 64/15) 49 .     Articles 171 and 178 provided, inter alia , that the internal investigation unit was directed by its head, who in turn regularly reported on the unit’s work to the Minister of Internal Affairs personally. The latter also issued mandatory instructions, directives and orders to the internal investigation unit as regards the performance of its duties. 50.     This Act was repealed and replaced by other legislation in 2016. Obligations Act ( Zakon o obligacionim odnosima , published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – OG SFRY – n o . 29/78, amendments published in OG SFRY N os . 39/85, 45/89 and 57/89, and in the official gazette of the federal republic of yugoslavia n o .   31/93) 51 .     Article 200 provides, inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear, physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his or her reputation, personal integrity, liberty or of his or her other personal rights ( prava ličnosti ) is entitled to seek financial compensation. 52.     Article 172 § 1 provides that a legal entity ( pravno lice ), which includes the State, is liable for any damage caused by one of “its bodies” to a “third person”. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 53.     Given the similar factual and legal background of the present applications, the Court decides to order their joinder pursuant to Rule 42 §   1 of the Rules of Court. The government’s preliminary objection as regards the alleged abuse of the right of petition 54.     The Government noted, in their observations of 22 October 2019, that the applicant had failed to inform the Court, from the outset of the proceedings before it, that he had obtained compensation before the civil courts for the alleged police ill-treatment, and maintained that he had thus abused his right of individual application, within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention. 55 .     The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts and false declarations (see, for example, Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia , no. 798/05, § 63, 15   September 2009; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no.   38433/09, §   97, ECHR 2012; and Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v.   Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 19 June 2006; Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no.   2912/11, 18 September 2012; and Gross , cited above, § 28). However, even in such cases, the applicant’s intention to mislead the Court must always be   established with sufficient certainty (see Al-Nashif v.   Bulgaria ,   no.   50963/99, § 89, 20 June 2002; Melnik v. Ukraine , no.   72286/01, §§ 58-60, 28 March 2006; and Nold v. Germany , no.   27250/02, § 87, 29 June 2006). 56.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant lodged his first application, no. 73313/17, on 7   October 2017 and did not mention on that occasion the civil proceedings which he had brought regarding the alleged police ill-treatment of 10   January 2014 (see paragraphs 35-38 above). Following the Court’s decision to give notice of this application to the Government and the submission of the Government’s written comments of 8 July 2019 in reply, in his own written submissions of 22   September 2019 the applicant informed the Court, for the first time, of the course and outcome of the civil proceedings in question (see paragraph 34 above). The said proceedings themselves had lasted from 9   January 2017 to 25 April 2018, which meant that they were pending when the applicant lodged application no. 73313/17 with the Court. In those circumstances, the Court notes that the applicant indeed failed to inform it at the outset of all of the relevant facts concerning his complaints raised in application no. 73313/17. He did, however, do so subsequently, on 22   September 2019, of his own motion and despite the absence of any objection raised by the Government in this regard in their submissions of 8   July 2019. The Court therefore concludes that while admittedly the applicant should have mentioned the relevant facts regarding the civil suit from the very beginning of the proceedings before it, there is no evidence that he intended to “mislead the Court” in that connection (see paragraph 55 above in fine ). 57.     It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 58.     The applicant complained, under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, of having been ill-treated while in police custody, as well as of the respondent State’s subsequent failure to conduct an effective official investigation in that regard. 59.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the cases before it (see, among many other authorities, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018 ), considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Admissibility The applicant’s victim status 60.     The Government maintained that given the outcome of the civil proceedings, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation alleged (see paragraphs 35-38 above). 61.     The applicant made no comments in this regard. 62.     The issue of whether the applicant may still claim to be a victim of a   violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of his alleged ill ‑ treatment is closely linked to the substance of his complaints under this provision and should, as such, more appropriately be examined at the merits stage. The Court therefore decides to join this objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaints (see Shestopalov v. Russia , no. 46248/07, § 40, 28   March 2017). Exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)    The parties’ submissions 63.     The Government argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the exhaustion requirement within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 64.     In the first place, according to the Government, the applicant should, following the rejection of his criminal complaint, have lodged a further private criminal action for the offence of slight bodily harm, an offence which corresponded more closely to the actual nature of the injuries allegedly sustained by him than the offence referred to in his own criminal complaint. The charges for slight bodily harm could, furthermore, have been brought by the applicant personally, without any involvement on the part of the public prosecution service, and would have resulted in a meritorious adjudication of his police abuse-related allegations by a court of law (see paragraph 46 above). 65.     In addition or in the alternative, the Government endorsed the reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9   June 2017 (see paragraph 17 above) and referred to other relevant case-law on the issue (see paragraph 43 above). According to the Government, however, the applicant should instead have lodged his constitutional appeal within a   period of thirty days of when the alleged police ill-treatment had taken place, notwithstanding the, at that time, still ongoing preliminary criminal investigation triggered by his own criminal complaint. In support of this contention the Government referred to a single decision adopted by the Constitutional Court on 14 November 2018, as well as the said court’s earlier opinion on the matter (see paragraphs 44, 41 and 42 above, in that order). In any event, the Government submitted that the applicant had also failed to properly raise his complaints before the Constitutional Court since in his appeal lodged therewith he had essentially complained about the violation of his right to a fair trial, having been dissatisfied with the fact that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the police officers concerned. 66.     The applicant maintained that he had complied with the exhaustion requirement by properly making use of the relevant criminal and constitutional remedies. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       As regards the private criminal action 67. &#xa