CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 février 2011

.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. 138 February 2011 Premininy v. Russia - 44973/04 Judgment 10.2.2011 [Section I] Article 3 Positive obligations Failure of detention administration to prevent a detainee’s systematic ill-treatment by fellow inmates: violation   Facts – While in a temporary detention facility, the first applicant was subjected to systematic humiliation and ill-treatment by fellow inmates which culminated in a severe beating by cellmates armed with wooden sticks, allegedly supplied by warders. He sustained concussion and numerous abrasions. The prison doctor attributed the injuries to systematic beatings over a period of a week. The first applicant was subsequently found to be suffering from mental-health problems as a result of his continual physical and psychological abuse in detention. Law – Article 3: Substantive aspect – The Court had to establish whether the authorities had known or ought to have known that the first applicant was suffering or was at risk of ill-treatment at the hands of his cellmates, and if so, whether they had taken reasonable steps to eliminate the risk and to protect him. The Court was not convinced by the Government’s argument that the applicant’s injuries had resulted from an unforeseeable one-off fight with a fellow inmate: there was uncontroverted evidence that he had suffered systematic abuse for at least a week at the hands of fellow inmates. That abuse had resulted in serious bodily injuries and a deterioration in his mental health. The authorities had been aware of the situation and could reasonably have foreseen that his provocative behaviour rendered him more vulnerable than the average detainee to the risk of violence. Nor could they have failed to notice the signs of abuse, given that at least part of his injuries were visible. These factors should have alerted them to the need to introduce specific security and surveillance measures to protect the first applicant from the continual verbal and physical aggression. However, there was no evidence that the authorities had any clear policy on the classification and housing of detainees, or had attempted to monitor violent or vulnerable inmates or taken disciplinary measures against the offenders. It was striking that it was only after the first applicant had been beaten up that he was removed from his cell. Finally, no meaningful attempts had been made to provide the applicant with psychological rehabilitation in the aftermath of the events. Accordingly, the authorities had not fulfilled their positive obligation to adequately secure the first applicant’s physical and psychological integrity and well-being. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found a violation of Article   3 in respect of the failure to hold an effective investigation into the ill-treatment, but no violation in respect of the first applicant’s complaint concerning ill-treatment by warders. Article 41: EUR 40,000 to the first applicant 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