CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 2006

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 762 7.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sheydayev v. Russia (application no. 65859/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the ill-treatment in police custody.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Roman Yakhyabekovich Sheydayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Derbent (Russia). At the time of the events he was performing contractual military service in a military unit in the Republic of Dagestan.   On 21 December 1999, he was taken by police officers to Derbent Town Police Station, supposedly to help them with their enquiries regarding an incident involving acts of violent hooliganism. While at the police station from 21 to 24 December 1999, the applicant submitted he was continuously beaten by up to five police officers who tried to force him to confess to having committed the offence they were investigating.   According to the applicant, the police officers punched him in his face and body, kicked him and hit him with a chair-leg and threatened to sodomise him. During one incident, after undressing him and tying him up, they tried to seat him with his naked rear on a bottle. The applicant then conceded to their demands and wrote a confession letter.   On 24 December 1999, at 6.00 p.m., the applicant was handed over to three fellow servicemen who accompanied him to his military unit. At about 8.00 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor of the medical unit. The doctor’s report noted a scabbed abrasion of skin and soft tissue bruises on the head and body.     A criminal investigation was initiated in response to the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police officers. On 21 January 2005 the Derbent Town Prosecutor found that, apart from the medical report of 24 December 1999, the inquiry had failed to obtain sufficient evidence to implicate the policemen.   On 27 May 2000 the Makhachkala Garrison Military Court found the applicant guilty of hooliganism committed as part of a group and gave him a two-year suspended prison sentence. The court considered his allegations of ill-treatment in police custody and accepted the findings of the medical report of 24 December 1999. However, it found that the applicant failed to submit persuasive evidence establishing the causal link between his injuries and the actions of the policemen and to prove his version of events. He was later pardoned on the basis of an amnesty act.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 January 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers while he was kept in custody. He relied on Article 3.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court recalled that it has held on many occasions that the authorities have an obligation to protect the physical integrity of persons in detention. Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused.   The Court noted that neither the parties nor the domestic authorities disputed the validity of the medical report drawn up on 24 December 1999 which established the presence of various injuries to the applicant’s head and chest. It further noted that no plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused was advanced by either the authorities at the domestic level, or the Government in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.   In view of those circumstances, the Court concluded that the Government had not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries were caused otherwise than - entirely, mainly, or partly - by the treatment he underwent while in police custody.   The Court found that the medical report of 24 December 1999 corroborated the applicant’s statements regarding the physical pain and suffering which were inflicted on him intentionally. Furthermore, it found that the acts complained of by the applicant were such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance.   Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, the Court concluded that, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment at issue amounted to torture and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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.