CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 octobre 2007

.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 } .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   709 23.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT COLIBABA v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Colibaba v. Moldova (application no. 29089/06).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment while in detention; that there had been a violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) of the Convention concerning the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations; that the Moldovan State had failed to comply with Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Colibaba 14,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vitalie Colibaba, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău.   On 21 April 2006 he was arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer. He alleged that on 25   and 27 April, while in detention, he was tortured by three police officers in order to force a confession from him. Mr Colibaba claimed that his hands and feet were tied together behind his back and a metal bar from a coat hanger was passed under his arms. His body suspended and his head covered with a coat, he was beaten with a chair on the back of his head. His hands were covered with cloth, so that there would be no marks left from the rope, and loud music was played so that his cries would not be heard. Those acts were accompanied by verbal and psychological aggression. Later the same day, the applicant attempted to commit suicide by cutting his veins. On 27 April he was allowed for the first time to have contact with his lawyer. He was subsequently tortured again: he was hit on the head with a two-litre plastic bottle full of water, punched and kicked.   The Moldovan authorities contested all those allegations.   On 29 April the applicant was taken by the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him for a medical examination. A medical report dated 28 April 2006 concluded that, apart from the injury caused by his attempted suicide, Mr Colibaba did not have any other signs of violence on his body. On 16 May 2006 he was released from detention and sought medical assistance at the “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims. A medical report issued by the Centre on 16 June 2006 stated that he had suffered from cranial trauma. That trauma was confirmed by the Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery of the Ministry of Health in a report following an examination on 18 May 2006.   The applicant’s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint, which was ultimately dismissed on 24 May 2006. The Moldovan courts based their decision on the medical report of 28 April 2006, the fact that the three policemen had denied all the accusations and that no coat hanger had been found in the office where the applicant had allegedly been tortured. On appeal, the applicant argued that he was refused a complete independent medical examination, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also informed the courts of the medical examinations he had had at his instigation which established that he had been tortured. The appeal was dismissed, as the courts simply repeated the reasons given in the decision of 24 May 2006.   In June 2006 the Moldovan Prosecutor General wrote a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association, in which he referred to the “phenomenon” of Moldovan lawyers involving international organisations which specialise in the protection of human rights in the examination of criminal cases. He cited the example of the applicant’s case, in which the lawyer complained to Amnesty International and added that “these organisations are used as an instrument for serving personal interests and for avoiding the criminal responsibility of suspected persons”. He also wrote that such practices by lawyers were defamatory of the State and that the Prosecutor General’s Office was to examine whether it would bring criminal proceedings against the applicant’s lawyer. The Moldovan Bar Association qualified the letter as an attempt to intimidate lawyers.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 and Article 13, Mr Colibaba complained that he was victim of severe police brutality and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his allegations. He also complained about the letter from the Prosecutor General to the Moldovan Bar Association, alleging that it was intended to intimidate and therefore hindered his application to the Court, in breach of Article 34.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment   The Court noted that it was undisputed that between 21   April   2006 and 16   May   2006, the applicant was under police control.   In their decision, the Moldovan courts had relied on the medical report dated 28 April 2006 and, in the Government’s submissions to the Court, it was argued that the medical reports dated 16 June and 18   May 2006 had not proved that the applicant had been suffering from cranial trauma when released from detention.   The Court was not convinced by those arguments. The report issued by the “Memoria” Centre was dated 16 June 2006, but had clearly stated that the applicant had come to the Centre on 16 May 2006. Moreover, the medical report dated 18 May 2006 confirmed the Centre’s findings.   Similarly, even though the report relied on by the Moldovan courts was dated 28   April 2006, it clearly appeared from its content and from the parties’ submissions that the actual medical examination had taken place on 29 April 2006. Moreover, the applicant had been taken for a medical examination by the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him and the medical examination took place in their presence. In such circumstances, the Court found it difficult to give weight to such a medical report.   The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s cranial trauma had been caused during his detention and considered that the Moldovan courts had not given any explanations concerning the origin of that injury. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning Mr Colibaba’s ill-treatment.   Concerning the lack of an effective investigation   The Court noted a series of serious shortcomings in the investigation conducted by the national authorities. The applicant’s request to the prosecutor’s office to have an independent medical examination had been rejected without any plausible reasons. The Moldovan courts had disregarded his submission, in his appeal, that he had not been allowed such an examination, and had also not paid attention to the medical report of 18 May 2006 which had indicated signs of ill-treatment.   The Court therefore considered that the Moldovan authorities had not made a serious attempt to investigate the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 34   Having examined the Prosecutor General’s letter, the Court tended to agree with the applicant that it had not seemed to have been merely a call to lawyers to observe professional ethics as claimed by the Government. The language employed by the Prosecutor General, the fact that he had expressly named the applicant’s lawyer and the warning that a criminal investigation would be brought as a result of the latter’s allegedly improper complaint to international organisations could easily have been construed as amounting to intimidation.   Even though it was not clear whether the Prosecutor General had known about the present application when he had written the letter, the wording could in any event have had a chilling effect on the intention to bring or pursue an application before the Court. The Court therefore held unanimously that the Moldovan State had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34.   Article 13   The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under this article.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.