CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Communicated on 30 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19421/15 V.D. against Croatia lodged on 10 April 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a Croatian national, who lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case On 11 August 2006 the applicant, who suffers from schizophrenia, was arrested in his parents’ flat following a minor argument with his relatives. In connection with that incident, in the case of V.D. v. Croatia (no. 15526/10, 8 November 2011), the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police during the arrest and that there had been no effective investigation in that respect, contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. On 16 August 2012, in the context of the procedure for the execution of the Court’s judgment, the Government submitted an action plan indicating that the applicant had sought the reopening of the case before the competent criminal courts. To date, the Committee of Ministers has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of the judgment under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. On 4 October 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court ( Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu ) ordered that the proceedings against D.K. and T.S., two police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest, be reopened. On 16 January 2014 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) ordered that the case be re-examined by an investigating judge of the competent criminal court with regard to allegations against two more police officers, S.P. and V.B., who had also been involved in the applicant’s arrest. 2.     Criminal investigation in respect of S.P., V.B., D.K. and T.S. On 30 May 2014 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) informed the applicant that it had opened an investigation into the actions of S.P., V.B., D.K. and T.S. concerning his allegations of ill-treatment during the arrest on 11 August 2006. During the investigation the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office questioned the applicant and his parents, as well as his wife and two other relatives who had witnessed the incident. It also questioned the suspects and commissioned an expert report concerning the injuries which the applicant had sustained in the incident. In the course of the proceedings the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office also commissioned a report from a forensic expert, D.M., concerning the injuries which the applicant had sustained following his arrest. The expert report provided by D.M. indicated that the injuries which the applicant had sustained on his face had been caused by two blows, probably by a fist, and that further injuries on his arms, legs and body had been caused by several blows, possibly also by a fall, as well as by handcuffing. Some of the injuries appeared to have been caused by the body being scratched with an object or dragged across the floor while lying face down. The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office also asked the Zagreb emergency service to provide the names of members of the medical team who had intervened at the scene during the applicant’s arrest. However, no reply was received. On the basis of a statement given by one of the suspects, V.B., the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office established the identity of one of the paramedics who had intervened at the scene. He was called by telephone and in his telephone interview with the prosecutor he denied seeing any ill-treatment of the applicant during the arrest. The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office found that the forensic expert D.M. needed to be questioned concerning his report. During his questioning, D.M. stated that it was possible that the injuries on the applicant’s face had been caused when the police officers had attempted to prevent the applicant from self-harming by holding his face and that it was possible that he had banged his head against the stretcher while being transported by the ambulance. D.M. further stressed that, likewise, a tongue laceration which the applicant had sustained could have been caused by his fall and by him banging his head against the stretcher. D.M. also explained that the injuries on the applicant’s body could not have been caused by beating but were likely to have been caused by the commotion during the arrest. The applicant’s legal representative was not informed of any of those procedural measures taken by the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office. On 9 December 2014 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office, on the basis of the evidence obtained, terminated the investigation on grounds of lack of evidence of any ill-treatment or any other excessive use of force by the police officers during the applicant’s arrest. The applicant challenged that decision before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ). On 19 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints inadmissible on the grounds that the impugned decision did not concern any of his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 5 March 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment by the police during his arrest.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the reopened investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.