CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 janvier 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 126 January 2010 Petyo Petkov v. Bulgaria - 32130/03 Judgment 7.1.2010 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Requirement for detainee to wear a balaclava when not in his cell: violation   Facts – After being arrested by the police on suspicion of being the perpetrator of a sulphuric acid attack, the applicant was charged and detained pending trial. From May 2002, by order of the district prosecutor, he was required to wear a balaclava with eye-holes whenever he left his cell, for example when moving around or outside the prison premises, at hearings or when receiving visits. He complained but to no avail. In 2003 he applied to the district court for the measure to be discontinued. In view of the length of time the measure had been applied, the court ordered its discontinuation after the end of a hearing in May 2003. Nevertheless, the police officers continued to compel the applicant to wear the balaclava outside the courtroom. In June 2003 the applicant was acquitted. Law – Article 3: Obligation to wear a balaclava – The applicant had been forced to conceal his face with a balaclava whenever he had left his cell over a period of one year and one month. That measure, which had impinged on the applicant’s physical identity and had been applied for such a lengthy period, had inevitably had a profound psychological impact on him. No provision of domestic law expressly permitted the measure. The applicant had been aware of that fact, having raised it before the district court, and had thus felt that he was being treated arbitrarily by the authorities. As to whether the measure had been necessary, in the context of the widespread media coverage of the applicant’s trial and in view of the nature and seriousness of the offence with which he had been charged and the existence of a separate criminal investigation into a similar offence, the concern to ensure the applicant’s own safety and to avoid jeopardising the two criminal investigations concerning him did not appear unfounded. In particular, the need to preserve the applicant’s anonymity could have justified the use of a balaclava during his appearances in public while he was being escorted to the courtroom. However, the application of that measure had not been justified during his movements within the detention facility itself to the area where he had met his relatives and lawyers. Similarly, the applicant’s anonymity during the consideration of his case by the courts could have been preserved by holding hearings in private or restricting the presence of television cameras or photographic equipment at hearings. However, despite the applicant’s repeated complaints, the State authorities had apparently not considered whether it might be appropriate to make such arrangements to alleviate his situation, and this had surely aggravated his feelings of frustration and helplessness. Lastly, the police officers’ arbitrary conduct in continuing to conceal the applicant’s face outside the courtroom despite the district court’s decision might have been perceived by him as a form of punishment. This punitive element had aroused in him feelings of anxiety, powerlessness and inferiority that were liable to debase him or lower his self-esteem. Accordingly, having regard to the duration and nature of its application, its lack of a legal basis, its arbitrariness and punitive character, the psychological effects of the measure in question had gone beyond the threshold of severity required for Article   3 to apply and the applicant had been subjected to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§   1 and   3, Article 6 §   2 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, and no violation of Article   3 as regards the applicant’s isolation from the other detainees’ activities.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes