CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   538 2.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MARTINEZ SALA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Martinez Sala and Others v. Spain (application no. 58438/00).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the allegations of ill-treatment in custody; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure to hold an effective official investigation into the allegations.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each of the applicants 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,009 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The 15 applicants, David Martinez Sala, Esteve Comellas Grau, Jordi Bardina Vilardell, Eduard Pomar Pérez, Eduard Lopéz Domenech, José Poveda Planas, Joan Rocamora Aguilera, Jaume Oliveras Maristany, Xavier Ros Gonzáles, Carles Buenaventura Cabanas, Guillem De Palleja Ferrer-Cajigal, Xavier Alemany Juanola, Josep Muste Nogué, Ramón Iglesias and Marcel Dalmau Brunet, are Spanish nationals who live in Catalonia.   Between 29 June and 7 July 1992, shortly before the Olympic Games in Barcelona, the applicants, who were suspected of being sympathisers of a Catalan independence movement, were arrested by Guardia Civil officers from Barcelona, Manresa, Sant Cugat and Girona in connection with an investigation into terrorist offences. They were transferred to the Guardia Civil headquarters in Madrid.   The applicants complained that they were ill-treated while in custody; that they received blows to the head and face and that they were blindfolded and subjected to sleep and food deprivation. Some of the applicants alleged that plastic bags or hoods were placed over their heads to make them feel they were suffocating.   The applicants lodged a complaint with the Madrid investigating judge alleging assault and torture. He made a provisional discharge order on the grounds that the forensic doctors had concluded in their reports that there was no proof that the complainants had been subjected to ill-treatment in custody. The applicants’ various appeals against that decision were dismissed.   The applicants renewed their complaint of ill-treatment at their trial in the Audiencia Nacional . In a judgment of 10 July 1995, the Audiencia Nacional convicted six of the applicants of belonging to or aiding and abetting an armed gang, of possessing explosives and firearms and of acts of terrorism. It declined to examine their allegations of torture and ill-treatment at the hearing.   Following that judgment and at the applicants’ request, the judge reopened the investigation. However, in November 1997 he made a provisional discharge order on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove the alleged ill-treatment. That decision was upheld by the Madrid Audiencia Provincial and the Constitutional Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 13 June 2000. On 18 November 2003 the Court declared the application partly admissible following a hearing.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), ad hoc judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicants complained under Article 3 that they had been subjected to physical and mental torture and to inhuman and degrading treatment on their arrest and while in custody in Catalonia and at the Guardia Civil headquarters in Madrid. They further alleged that the investigations by the domestic authorities were not effective or thorough and had not enabled the facts to be established.   Decision of the Court   Allegations of ill-treatment   The Court observed that its task had not been facilitated by the very long period, 12 years, which had elapsed since the occurrence of the events complained of. In their application, the applicants had provided an exhaustive and precise account of the treatment to which they said they had been subjected in custody. That contrasted with the far sketchier statements that had been taken by the forensic doctor. The findings recorded in the medical certificates issued by the forensic doctors and the uncooperativeness of some of the applicants with the doctors cast doubt on the credibility of the allegations of ill-treatment.   Apart from marks made by the handcuffs and a few minor bruises and haematoma, the reports drawn up by the forensic doctors did not mention any significant signs or traces of ill-treatment. As to the allegations of some of the applicants that they had been subjected to serious ill-treatment, the Court was unable to make any finding in the absence of medical or other evidence. Nor did the results of the medical examinations carried out by private practitioners offer any assistance on that point either. In addition, the investigation by the domestic authorities had not been sufficiently complete to establish which version of events was the more credible.   The Court found that the applicants’ allegations were not sufficiently supported by the evidence they had adduced and held that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment   The Court noted that in finding that there was no evidence to prove the matters complained of, the Spanish Court had relied solely on the detailed report of the forensic doctor and the various individual medical reports he had drawn up while the applicants were in custody.   The Court was not satisfied that the investigations had been sufficiently thorough and effective for the purposes of Article 3. It noted that although the applicants had referred in their complaints to the members of the security forces who had questioned them in custody, one of the reasons the investigating judge had repeatedly given for making the discharge order was the difficulty in identifying those responsible for the alleged ill-treatment. The Court considered it unfortunate that the authorities had not taken statements from the arresting officers or custody officers. Moreover, the investigating judge had turned down the applicants’ request for evidence from proceedings in another case, including statements by police officers, to be added to the case file. Nor did it appear from the file that the investigating judge had taken statements from the applicants. Ultimately, the Court could but note that the judicial authorities had dismissed all the applicants’ requests for evidence to be obtained, thereby denying them a reasonable opportunity to establish the matters of which they complained. Consequently, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the absence of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1]     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.