CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   374 5.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Trubnikov v. Russia (application no. 49790/99).   The Court held unanimously that: there had been no violation of Article   2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Russian authorities’ obligation to protect the life of the applicant’s son; there had been a violation of Article   2 of the Convention as regards the authorities’ failure to undertake an effective investigation; the Russian Government had failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,315 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Grigoryevich Trubnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Khokholskiy, in the Voronezh region (Russie).   He is the father of Viktor Trubnikov, who was found dead on 13 September 1998 in a punishment cell of the prison where he had been serving his sentence. He had died of asphyxia caused by hanging. At the time of his death, Viktor Trubnikov was 26 years old and was due to be released 21 days later.   On 30   August 1993 Viktor Trubnikov was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He was serving his sentence in the correctional labour colony ( исправительно-трудовая колония) OZH 118/8 in Rossosh, Voronezh Region. He expected to be released on probation on 4 October 1998.   According to the records submitted by the Russian Government, on three occasions in 1994 and 1995 Viktor Trubnikov was found to be under the influence of alcohol and placed in a punishment cell. During his second disciplinary confinement, Viktor Trubnikov injured himself, and, during his third disciplinary confinement, he attempted suicide.   Following the suicide attempt, Viktor Trubnikov was placed under regular psychiatric supervision.   On 13   September 1998 a prison football team, of which Viktor Trubnikov was a member, took part in a match outside the prison. On return to the prison after the match, Viktor Trubnikov was found to be under the influence of alcohol. At 7.15 p.m. a prison officer placed him in a punishment cell where he was to be kept in solitary confinement before his inspection by the prison warder the following morning. At 8.20 p.m. Viktor Trubnikov was found dead, hanged by the sleeve of his jacket with another sleeve attached to a water pipe.   That evening the prison governor conducted an inquest. He ordered that no criminal investigation be opened, as it did not appear that a crime had been committed.   An autopsy report found that Viktor Trubnikov’s death had been caused by pressure on the neck through hanging.   The applicant’s requests for a criminal investigation to be started were not successful until after his case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Russian Government.   On 10   October 2002 the Voronezh City Special Prosecutor’s Office supervising penitentiary institutions terminated the criminal investigation, having established that Viktor Trubnikov had committed suicide.   On 3 March 2003 the applicant received a copy of this termination order.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 March 1999 and declared partly admissible on 14 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint The applicant alleged that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of his son in prison. He also alleged that the authorities had failed to investigate the circumstances of his son’s death. He relied on Article 2 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   The Court’s establishment of the facts The Russian Government submitted a photocopy of what they claimed to be the psychiatric records made while Viktor Trubnikov was alive, without specifying whether it was a copy of the file itself or an extract from it. Due to the poor quality of the copy, the distorted chronology of records, in particular those relating to the period 1997-1998, and the absence of page numbers, it was impossible to follow the sequence of the records or establish if it was an extract, who issued it and when.   The Court therefore requested the Government to submit the original medical file. The Government refused, on the grounds that it was unsafe to remove it from the prison archives where it was kept. The Court repeated its request, giving assurances that the original would be returned to the Russian authorities at the end of the proceedings. However, the Government still refused to comply with the Court’s request.   The Court decided to examine the merits of the case on the basis of the existing elements in the file, even though the fragmentary medical records left certain facts unclear.   Article 38 § 1 (a) The Court found that the Russian Government had failed to provide any convincing explanation for their refusal to provide the original medical file concerning the psychiatric supervision of Viktor Trubnikov prior to his death.   The Court therefore considered that it could draw inferences from the Government’s conduct. Bearing in mind the difficulties arising from the establishment of the facts in the case, and in view of the importance of a respondent Government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings, the Court found that the Russian Government had failed to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts for the purposes of Article 38 § 1 (a).   Article 2   Positive obligation to protect life The Court first examined whether the authorities knew or ought to have known that there was a real and immediate risk of Viktor Trubnikov committing suicide and, if so, whether they did all that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent that risk.   The Court noted that Viktor Trubnikov served his sentence under the general regime, while being recognised as a person with certain psychological problems. During the first years of his sentence he showed a tendency to inflict self-harm in response to being subjected to disciplinary punishments when under the influence of alcohol, and in 1995, more than three years before the events in question, he attempted to commit suicide. That attempt was assessed as a “cry for help” rather than a true attempt to terminate his life. Following that incident he received psychiatric treatment and was kept under surveillance, his mental condition being reviewed at regular six-monthly intervals.   The Court observed that Viktor Trubnikov’s condition was not so serious as to require the intervention of a court order imposing compulsory psychiatric treatment. His prison medical records indicated that he displayed no acute psychiatric symptoms, even after his suicide attempt in 1995. Rather they showed a disturbed personality and behavioural setbacks, which apparently did not reach the threshold of a mental illness.   Accordingly, it had not been established that Viktor Trubnikov’s conduct was associated with any dangerous psychiatric condition. Moreover, no opinion had ever been expressed – by his psychiatrist or other officials involved in his supervision – that Viktor Trubnikov was likely to make a serious attempt to commit suicide or inflict self-harm in the future. Accordingly, there was no formal acknowledgement which would lead the Court to conclude that the authorities were aware of the imminent threat to Viktor Trubnikov’s life.   As to whether the authorities ought to have known of the risk, the Court observed that for the last three years of Viktor Trubnikov’s life, when he was under psychiatric supervision, he did not reveal any dangerous symptoms, such as the persistence of his suicidal tendency. On the contrary, the records reflected a certain improvement in his attitude towards his previous suicide attempt. Viktor Trubnikov’s mental and emotional state, in general, apparently stabilised after the initial intensive treatment he received in 1995, and remained unchanged for more than three years. During that period no substantial variations were registered, and Viktor Trubnikov’s state was consistently described as stable. Against such a background, the Court accepted that it would have been difficult to predict any quick and drastic deterioration that would lead to Viktor Trubnikov’s suicide.   For those reasons the Court did not find that, in the circumstances, the authorities could have reasonably foreseen Viktor Trubnikov’s decision to hang himself. Nor did the Court find any manifest omission on the part of the domestic authorities in providing medical assistance or in monitoring Viktor Trubnikov’s mental and emotional condition throughout his imprisonment which would have prevented them from making a correct assessment of the situation.   However, the Court considered that Viktor Trubnikov’s history should have alerted the authorities to the fact that the combination of his inebriation with a disciplinary punishment was not without some risk to his condition. The fact that Viktor Trubnikov was able to have any access to alcohol on the fatal day was of concern to the Court. Nevertheless, the Court did not find that oversight sufficient to render the domestic authorities wholly responsible for Viktor Trubnikov’s death.   In conclusion, the Court did not find that, in the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Russian authorities failed to prevent a real and immediate risk of suicide or that they otherwise acted in a way incompatible with their positive obligations to guarantee the right to life.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 2.       Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation The Court found that a procedural obligation arose to investigate the circumstances of Viktor Trubnikov’s death. He was a prisoner under the care and responsibility of the authorities when he died as a result of what appeared to be suicide. The investigation was necessary to establish, firstly, the cause of death to the exclusion of an accident or manslaughter and, secondly, once suicide was established, to examine whether the authorities were in any way responsible for a failure to prevent it. The investigation also had to fulfil certain requirements.   The Court observed that the initial inquest into the death was carried out promptly, within several days of the incident. However, it did not satisfy the minimum requirement of independence since the investigating body – the prison governor – represented the authority involved. Predictably, the scope of that examination was limited to establishing the fact of death from hanging; the question of the possible responsibility of the prison authorities was not covered. Moreover, that inquest did little to satisfy the need for public scrutiny. It was undisputed that the family was not even informed about the formal refusal to institute criminal proceedings. Finally, the domestic court considered that investigation to be insufficient and declared the refusal to open criminal proceedings unlawful. With regard to all the above considerations, the Court could not accept that the initial inquest constituted an effective investigation within the meaning of the Court’s case-law.   Concerning the investigation carried out in 2002, the Court noted that it was only conducted after the applicant’s case was communicated by the Court to the Russian Government, more than three years after the incident. The Court reiterated that it was crucial in cases of deaths in contentious situations for the investigation to be prompt. The passage of time inevitably eroded the amount and quality of the evidence available and the appearance of a lack of diligence would cast doubt on the good faith of the investigative efforts, as well as drag out the ordeal for members of the family. Such a substantial delay, unexplained in the applicant’s case, not only demonstrated the authorities’ failure to take action but also constituted a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness.   The Court noted, furthermore, that throughout the investigation the applicant and the rest of the family were entirely excluded from the proceedings. Contrary to the usual practice under national law, they were not granted the official status of victims in criminal proceedings, a procedural role which would have entitled them to intervene during the course of the investigation. Even assuming that the family’s participation could have been secured otherwise, that did not happen. The terms of their access to the file were not defined. They were never informed or consulted about any proposed evidence or witnesses, including the appointment of posthumous psychological and psychiatric experts, so they could not take part in instructing the experts. The applicant did not receive any information about the progress of the investigation and, when it was discontinued on 10   October 2002, he was only notified five months later. Accordingly, the investigation did not ensure sufficient public accountability to provide the investigation and its results with a sufficient element of public scrutiny; nor did it safeguard the interests of the next-of-kin.   The Court also noted that the authorities took a number of important steps to establish the true circumstances of Viktor Trubnikov’s death, such as examining key witnesses and appointing experts to prepare a posthumous psychological and psychiatric examination. However, having established various important failings in the investigation, such as the lack of promptness, exemplary diligence, initiative on the part of the authorities and public scrutiny, the Court did not find that it was also necessary to examine the scope of the investigation. Concluding that the investigation failed to meet the minimum standards of effectiveness, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Russia’s obligation under Article 2 § 1 to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Viktor Trubnikov. ***   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. [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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.