CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 12 June 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15741/15 Lenka SLÁDKOVÁ against the Czech Republic lodged on 25 March 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Lenka Sládková, is a Czech national, who was born in   1983 and lives in Prague. She is represented before the Court by Ms Zuzana Candigliota, of the Human Rights League in Brno. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicant’s version of the events On 18 February 2013 the intoxicated applicant had an argument with a bartender in a restaurant. The bartender called the police who took the applicant to a police station. The applicant was then transferred to a sobering-up centre. The police treated the applicant very roughly and threatened her during the transfer to the police station. There the applicant was exposed to an abusive, degrading, and violent treatment, leaving visible marks on her body. The applicant was choked and could not speak properly for three days. She was handcuffed and her hands felt numb for several days. The police officers, thinking she was a person of the Roma origin, called her “black bitch”. They asked her to show them her breasts. They did not give the applicant her anxiety medication, instead they responded to her request with insults and humiliating questions. Due to the traumatic experience, the applicant was not able to see a doctor immediately after her release. She saw a doctor on 21 February 2013, when the injuries were still clearly visible. Due to the persistent numbness in her wrists, she consulted a doctor again on 24 February 2013. According to the medical certificates, she had a bruise on her upper lip, hematomas on her arms, lower legs and knees, and small abrasions around her ankles. She allegedly suffered a severe psychological damage, resulting in anxiety, fear of leaving her home, frequent nightmares and panic attacks. 2.     Procedural steps taken by the applicant On 21 February 2013 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint ( trestní oznámení ) against the police officers involved in the incident. The applicant was instructed by a police officer over the phone to send the complaint to Kongresová 2, Prague, which is in fact the seat of the Regional Police Directorate. She sent the criminal complaint there, but addressed the General Inspection of Security Forces in the head of her complaint. The police did not forward it to the General Inspection of Security Forces, instead they investigated the incident themselves. By letters of the Prague I District Police Directorate of 28 March 2013, of the Prague II District Police Directorate of 8 April 2013, and of the Regional Police Directorate of 9 April 2013, the applicant was informed that her complaint was found ill-founded. According to the letters, the officers involved were heard, as well as medics checking the applicant at the police station and the doctor in charge of the sobering-up centre. A part of the police file was also consulted. According to the Regional Police Directorate, the applicant, after consuming a number of alcoholic beverages, refused to pay at the restaurant. She was aggressive and rude to the police officers and refused to leave the restaurant. When entering the police car, she kicked out a window. Due to her aggressive behaviour, a backup was requested and necessary force was used to neutralize her and put her in the police car. A called-in paramedic did not consider necessary to transfer her to a hospital. On 17 April 2013 the applicant sent the criminal complaint again, this time electronically directly to the General Inspection of Security Forces. On 23 April 2013 the General Inspection of Security Forces forwarded the complaint to the Regional Police Directorate. On 29 April 2013 the applicant lodged a request under Act no. 82/1998 with the Ministry of Interior, claiming compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. On 27 September 2013 the Ministry found the request to be ill-founded. It came to the conclusion that the applicant had been intoxicated and aggressive during the incident and it was her who had caused herself the abrasions and bruises on her hands and legs. The Ministry referred to her own statement of 19 February 2013 that she did not remember the events due to her intoxication. The Ministry also noted that the camera record at the police station was automatically deleted after 30 days and that it was not requested to be examined within that period. On 4 December 2013 the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Prague responded to the applicant’s complaint about the General Inspection of Security Forces forwarding her complaint of 17 April 2013 instead of examining it. It held that the complaint was assessed as a complaint against the conduct of the police officers and forwarded without delay to the relevant police authority. On 5 February 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the conduct of the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Prague and the General Inspection of Security Forces. She alleged that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police officers and that her criminal complaint against them had not been investigated by an independent authority, i.e. the General Inspection of Security Forces. Moreover, the investigation by the police was inadequate, as she was not heard, the medical reports not assessed, and the camera record from the police station not examined. On 23 September 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed her constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court did not find the conduct of the General Inspection of Security Forces unconstitutional. Moreover, if she did not agree with the response of the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Prague, she could have lodged a complaint to the higher Public Prosecutor’s Office. As for the alleged ill-treatment, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s account of the incident had not been proven in the investigation. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 25 September 2014. B.     Relevant domestic law Act no. 341/2011 on the General Inspection of Security Forces Pursuant to Section 1 §§ 1-4, the General Inspection of Security Forces is an armed security corps, headed by a director. The latter is appointed and revoked, on the demand of the Government and after examination by the security committee of the Chamber of Deputies, by the Prime Minister to whom he is responsible. The General Inspection of Security Forces forms an organizational part of the State and a budgetary unit whose receipts and expenses constitute an independent chapter of the State budget. Section 2 provides that the General Inspection of Security Forces’ task is to seek for, reveal and verify the facts showing that a criminal offence was committed by a policeman, and to investigate such offence.   Act no. 141/1961 Sb., Code of Criminal Procedure   Pursuant to Section 158 § 12, if there are indications that a crime, which is in the power of the General Inspection of Security Forces to investigate, was committed, the police authorities notify the General Inspection of Security Forces immediately and hand the case over. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect that she was ill-treated by the police officers. She alleges that they choked her (she could not speak properly for three days as a result) and beat her (causing her several bruises and swellings, a blood cut under her upper lip, bruised ribs, wrist, and spine). She was handcuffed for an inappropriately long time and repeatedly insulted by racist and sexist comments of the police officers. While admitting she was aggressive during the incident, she considers the conduct of the police officers (and the force used) to be disproportional. 2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. She maintains that the investigation was not thorough and effective, the most serious shortcoming being the failure to secure the camera record from the police station before it was erased. According to her, the record would have been the only direct and objective evidence of what really happened. Furthermore, she was not heard during the investigation, the police officers were heard with a delay after the inquiries had started and several days apart, and the medical reports were ignored. Another serious shortcoming is that her criminal complaint was not forwarded to the General Inspection of Security Forces and instead the incident was investigated by the police, i.e. colleagues of the police officers involved. 3. The applicant also invokes Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that the response from the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Prague was inadequate and insufficiently reasoned. The Constitutional Court failed to fully assess effectiveness of the investigation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see, among many others, Kummer v.   the   Czech   Republic , no.   32133/11, §§ 80-83, 25 July 2013), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular was it independent?