CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 83 February 2006 Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria - 46317/99 Judgment 23.2.2006 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Death of suspect held at police station and failure to conduct an effective investigation: violations   Facts : The applicants, of Roma ethnic origin, are the late Mr. Stefanov's common-law spouse and his mother. In 1993 Mr Stefanov was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in numerous thefts and burglaries. The next day, while he was being questioned he fell from a third-floor window of the police station where he was being detained. He was taken to hospital but died the following day. The only three eyewitnesses to the event were Lieutenant I.C., in whose office Mr. Stefanov had been questioned, a chief sergeant and a further suspect. According to their statements, Mr. Stefanov, who had been handcuffed at the time, had jumped out of the window in an effort to escape. Numerous injuries were found on his Mr. Stefanov's body during his autopsy. The ensuing investigation concluded that he had voluntarily jumped out of the window and that all his injuries had been the result of his fall. The applicants contested these conclusions. Article 2 – Mr. Stefanov's death: It was unclear whether Mr. Stefanov had jumped from the window of his own accord, whether he had been deliberately pushed or forced into a situation where he had had no other option but to jump. It was highly improbable however that he had tried to escape, given that the window had been over 9 metres above ground level, that the ground had been covered with concrete and iron grills, and that he had been handcuffed at the time. Furthermore, there was no reason to believe that he would have committed an unprovoked suicide, or that he had been drunk. The Court noted inconsistencies in the authorities' version of the events and questioned their conclusion that all the injuries Mr. Stefanov had sustained had been caused exclusively by his fall, without the authorities having explored other hypotheses as to their possible source. In these circumstances the Government had not fully accounted for Mr. Stefanov's death and injuries during his detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 2 – Alleged inadequacy of the investigation: The Court expressed reservations about the credibility of the witness statements. In particular, the authorities had never asked Lieutenant I.C. to clarify the inconsistencies in his different accounts. The Court also noted serious omissions in the investigation. In particular, the site of the incident had not been preserved in its original state prior to its inspection. The authorities had made no effort to explore other hypotheses as to the possible source of Mr. Stefanov's injuries. Lieutenant I.C. had been questioned for the first time over a year after the incident and other police officers had been questioned some three years later. The investigation has suffered from lengthy periods of inactivity. In sum, it had lacked the requisite objectivity and thoroughness, a fact which had undermined its ability to establish the cause of Mr. Stefanov's death and injuries. It followed that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his death. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 3 – The Court found it unlikely that all of Mr. Stefanov's injuries, spread about his trunk, limbs and head, could have been solely the product of a fall. Furthermore, they had not been properly accounted for in the expert medical reports. In sum, the Government had not provided a plausible explanation for Mr   Stefanov's injuries which had been indicative of inhuman treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5(1) – Since the domestic investigation had not established the facts relating to Mr. Stefanov's detention and had not gathered any documents in this respect, it was not clear on the basis of which provisions of domestic law, if any, he had been taken into custody. In such circumstances, his deprivation of liberty had been unlawful. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – Since there had been no effective criminal investigation, the applicants had been denied any effective remedy that might have led to the identification and punishment of those responsible for Mr.   Stefanov's ill-treatment and death, and consequently any award of compensation that might have existed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 – The materials in the case file contained no concrete indication that racist attitudes had played a role in the events at issue. Nor had the applicants pointed to any such facts. Therefore, unlike the situation obtaining in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (Grand Chamber judgment of 6 July 2005; see CLR 77-A), the authorities had not had before them any concrete element capable of suggesting that the death of Mr Stefanov had been the result of racial prejudice. While the Court did not underestimate the fact that there existed many published accounts of the existence in Bulgaria of prejudice and hostility against Roma, it did not consider that in the particular circumstances the authorities had had before them information which had been sufficient to alert them to the need to investigate possible racist overtones in the events that had led to the death of Mr Stefanov. Conclusion : no violation of Article 14 (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded EUR 20,000 to Ms   Ognyanova, and EUR 10,000 to Ms Choban for non‑pecuniary damage as well as a further amount for 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