CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 mars 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 84 March 2006 Menesheva v. Russia - 59261/00 Judgment 9.3.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Torture Ill-treatment by police officers, and effectiveness of the investigation: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Lack of records concerning the applicant’s arrest, and ensuing five days’ detention ordered by a judge neglecting procedural guarantees: violation   Facts : The applicant, a young woman 19 years old, claims that the police tried to search her apartment on the night of 12 February 1999 in relation to an investigation of a murder case in which a suspect was thought to be her boyfriend. She refused to let the police enter as they had no warrant. The following day three policemen again demanded to enter her apartment. As they still had no warrant she again refused. The police insisted and a clash broke out. The applicant claims she was intimidated and physically ill-treated by the police officers and taken to a police station without being informed of the reasons of her arrest. She alleges that at the police station she was questioned about “her husband”, and that when she responded she had never been married, she was beaten up and threatened during two hours. The applicant was kept in a detention cell overnight. On 14 February 1999 she was brought before an officer who, without introducing himself, told her “five days” – she subsequently learnt that he had imposed on her a five days’ sentence for the administrative offence of forceful resistance to the police. She was held in detention until 18 February 1999. The following day the applicant underwent a forensic examination which established she had multiple bruises, abrasions and a traumatic oedema. The applicant requested an investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful detention, and claimed damages with the Town Court. An internal enquiry carried out by the Internal Affairs Department concluded that her allegations were unsubstantiated. The public prosecutor decided not to open criminal investigations in respect of the accused police officers. The Town Court found that the police had acted lawfully; moreover, it dismissed the forensic report as irrelevant and held that the allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated. The applicant also challenged her five day’s administrative detention, but the Regional Court found that it had been lawful. In 2003, a criminal investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and her allegations of ill-treatment was opened. The Regional Court, on a request of the prosecutor, found that the applicant’s resistance to the police had not constituted an administrative offence and quashed the decision of 14 February 1999 in which the applicant had been convicted thereof. The investigation, which has not established the circumstances of the events, is still pending according to the Government. Law : Article   3 (ill-treatment by the police) – Having regard to the applicant’s detailed allegations, corroborated by the forensic report, and in view of the absence of any other plausible explanation as to the origin of the injuries found on the applicant upon her release from custody, the Court accepted that she had been ill-treated by the police. The existence of physical pain or suffering was attested by the medical expert and the applicant’s statements. Moreover, the sequence of events demonstrated that the pain and suffering had been inflicted on her intentionally, with a view to extracting from her information concerning the murder allegedly committed by the person who was supposedly her boyfriend. At the material time the applicant was only 19 years old and, being a female confronted by several male policemen, was particularly vulnerable. Moreover, the ill-treatment had lasted for several hours, during which she was twice beaten up and subjected to other forms of violent physical and moral impact. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill‑treatment had amounted to torture within the meaning of Article   3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   3 (effectiveness of the investigation) – The applicant’s requests for an investigation were filed within one month of the incident and contained a detailed account of events. However, no investigation followed. The enquiry by the Internal Department, although it resulted in some disciplinary charges, did not disclose the names of those charged or the grounds for their punishment. Hence, it could not qualify as an effective investigation. The investigation was only opened four years after the events complained of (following the proceedings before the Court), and was not satisfactory: it failed to establish the material circumstances and to address the questions put before it. In 2004, the Prosecutor General gave orders for the investigation to be resumed, but since then there has been no follow-up, and the shortfalls of the investigation have not been remedied. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   5(1) – It was not disputed that the applicant’s arrest, her overnight detention at the police station and the subsequent five days’ administrative detention had amounted to deprivation of liberty. As regards the arrest and overnight detention, no records or documents concerning the date, time, name of the detainee or reasons for the detention could be found. This was a serious failing incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article   5. Concerning the five days’ detention on the charge of forceful resistance to the police, this decision was subsequently declared unlawful and quashed by the domestic courts. The judge who had taken the decision had exercised his authority in manifest opposition to the procedural guarantees provided for by the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   6(1) – The administrative proceedings against the applicant could be considered to have involved the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant given that she had been deprived of her liberty for five days and locked up in the detention centre during the term of her sentence. Moreover, the purpose of the sanction imposed on the applicant was purely punitive. The Government accepted that the proceedings at issue had been defective both under domestic law and the Convention. The ruling quashing the above judgment corroborated that there had been no adversarial proceedings and that even the appearances of a trial had been neglected to the extent that the applicant did not get a chance to find out the purpose of her brief appearance before the judge. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   13 – No effective criminal investigation can be considered to have been carried out. Consequently, any other remedy available to the applicant, including the claim for damages, had little chances of success. Indeed, as regards the applicant’s action for damages, the court simply endorsed the prosecutor’s opinion that the claim was unmeritorious without assessing the facts. Hence, such an action was only a theoretical and illusory remedy, not capable of affording redress to the applicant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant 25 roubles in respect of pecuniary damage and 35,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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