CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2005

.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. 81 December 2005 Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece - 15250/02 Judgment 13.12.2005 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Physical and verbal abuse of two Roma gypsies during police custody alleged to have been racially motivated, and effectiveness of the investigation: no violation, violation   Article 3 Inhuman treatment   Facts : The applicants, who are ethnic Romas, were arrested by the police when attempting to break into a kiosk. The first applicant complains that he was repeatedly hit on the back with a truncheon, slapped and punched, both at the moment of detention and when being interviewed at the police station. The second applicant maintains that he was also abused physically and verbally throughout his interrogation. The Government dispute these facts. The day after their release, a forensic doctor issued a medical certificate stating that the applicants had “moderate bodily injuries caused in the past twenty-four hours by a heavy blunt instrument”. The applicants have produced to the Court pictures taken on the day of their release showing their injuries. As a result of publicity which the incident received in the media, the Ministry of Public Order launched an administrative inquiry. The inquiry found that the officers who had arrested the applicants had acted “lawfully and appropriately”, whilst two others had treated them with “particular cruelty during their detention”. The report recommended the temporary suspension from service of these two officers, but this never took place. The applicants subsequently instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers. An official inquiry into the incident was ordered, and one of the police officers was committed for trial on account of physical abuse during the interrogation. The Court of Appeal concluded there was no evidence implicating the accused officer in any abuse and found him not guilty. The applicants, who had joined the proceedings as civil parties, were precluded under domestic law from appealing against this decision. Law : Article 3 (as regards the ill-treatment) – Where an individual has been taken into police custody in good health but found to be injured at the time of release, it was incumbent on the State concerned to provide a plausible explanation for those injuries. In the present case, the domestic authorities had failed to do so. The Court concluded that the serious physical harm suffered by the applicants at the hands of the police, as well as the feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority which the impugned treatment had produced in them, must have caused them suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the police to be categorised as inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 3 (as regards the effectiveness of the investigation) – On several occasions, during both the administrative inquiry and the ensuing judicial proceedings, it had been acknowledged that the applicants were ill-treated while in custody. However, no police officer was ever punished, either within the criminal proceedings or the internal police disciplinary procedure for ill-treating the applicants. The fine of less than 59 euros imposed on one of the police officers was imposed not on the grounds of his own ill‑treatment of the applicants but for his failure to prevent the occurrence of ill-treatment by his subordinates. None of the officers involved in the incident were at any time suspended from service, despite the recommendation of the report on the findings of the administrative inquiry. The investigation did not appear to have produced any tangible results, and, therefore, the applicants received no redress for their complaints. Having regard to the lack of an effective investigation into the credible allegation made by the applicants that they had been ill-treated while in custody, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 (as regards State liability for ill-treatment based on discrimination) –   The Court considered that, while the police officers’ conduct during the applicants’ detention called for serious criticism, that behaviour was of itself an insufficient basis for concluding that the treatment inflicted on the applicants by the police was racially motivated. The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3 concerning the allegation that racist attitudes played a role in the applicants’ treatment by the police. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 (as regards the investigation into racist motives) – When investigating violent incidents, State authorities had the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice might have played a role in the events. Admittedly, proving racial motivation will often be extremely difficult in practice. The authorities had to do what was reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully-reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that might indicate racist motives. In the instant case, the authorities investigating the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants had before them the sworn testimonies of the first applicant that, in addition to being the victims of serious assaults, they had been subjected to racial abuse by the police who were responsible for the ill-treatment. In addition, they had before them the joint open letter of the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the Greek Minority Rights Group referring to some 30 oral testimonies concerning similar incidents of ill-treatment of members of the Roma community. The Court considered that those statements, when combined with the reports of international organisations on alleged discrimination by the police in Greece against Roma and similar groups, including physical abuse and the excessive use of force, called for verification. In the present case, despite the plausible information available to the authorities that the alleged assaults had been racially motivated, there was no evidence that they carried out any examination into the question. In particular, nothing was done to verify the statements of the first applicant that they had been racially verbally abused or the other statements referred to in the open letter alleging similar ill-treatment of Roma; nor did any inquiries appear to have been made as to whether one of the police officers concerned had previously been involved in similar incidents or whether he had ever been accused in the past of displaying anti-Roma sentiment; nor, further, did any investigation appear to have been conducted into how the other officers of the Mesolonghi police station were carrying out their duties when dealing with ethnic minority groups. Moreover, even though the Greek Helsinki Monitor gave evidence before the trial court in the applicants’ case and that the possible racial motives for the incident could not therefore have escaped the attention of the court, no specific regard appeared to have been paid to that question. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3 in that the authorities failed in their duty to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not discrimination might have played a role in the events at issue. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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