CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 janvier 2008

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   046 24.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia (application no. 839/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Olga Maslova’s ill-treatment and repeated rape by a policeman and prosecution officers; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention concerning Fedor Nalbandov’s ill-treatment by prosecution officers; a violation of Article 3 (lack of an effective investigation) in respect of each applicant on account of the lack of an effective investigation; and, a failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 70,000   euros   (EUR) to Ms Maslova and EUR   10,000 to Mr Nalbandov in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Olga Maslova and Fedor Nalbandov, are two Russian nationals who were born in 1980 and 1982, respectively. They live in Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia).   The case concerned, in particular, Ms Maslova’s allegation that she was repeatedly raped and ill-treated by a policeman and prosecution officials and that the investigation into her allegations was inadequate.   Ms Maslova, who was a witness in a murder case, was called for questioning to the Nizhegorodskiy District Department Police Station on 25 November 1999. She submitted that she arrived at 12.30 p.m. and was initially questioned by policemen Kh. and K. concerning her alleged possession of items belonging to a murder victim. On denying any involvement in the murder, the officers threatened her and beat her with her soccer scarf. Later Kh., in K.’s absence, put thumb cuffs on Ms Maslova, beat her, raped her and then forced her to perform oral sex. Subsequently both officers repeatedly hit her in the stomach, put a gas mask over her face, blocking the air to cause suffocation, and ran electricity through wires attached to her earrings. Eventually Ms Maslova confessed. She submitted that she was shaking so much that she had to write out her confession twice. She was subsequently handed over to the prosecution authorities, based at the police station, for further questioning. Ms Maslova’s requests to be released were denied. When allowed to go to the lavatory she attempted to cut the veins of her wrists. Prosecution officers Zh., S., and M., although having finished the interrogation, drank alcohol and continued to rape her. They used condoms and cleaned up after with disposable wipes. Ms Maslova was finally released at 10   p.m..   In the meantime, Ms Maslova’s mother and Mr Nalbandov had arrived at the police station late in the afternoon and were both detained for questioning. Mr Nalbandov alleged that prosecution officials punched, kicked and tried to suffocate him with his CSKA Moscow soccer scarf. He was then sent out to buy food, alcohol and cigarettes. On his return, he was expelled from the building.   On 26 November 1999 Ms Maslova filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office alleging that she had been raped and tortured. An investigation was immediately opened. Witnesses were interviewed. The police station was searched and the evidence gathered submitted for forensic examination. A used condom found in the station was proven to have a 99.99% probability of having traces of Ms Maslova’s vaginal cells. Disposable wipes found had traces of sperm. The clothes Ms Maslova had worn at the relevant time were also found to have traces of sperm and policeman Kh.’s clothes had traces of vaginal tissue of the same antigen group as Ms Maslova. Other evidence included a medical certificate confirming that Ms Maslova had attempted to cut her veins and her handwritten confession, described by an expert as written with “a shaking hand”.   On 25 April 2000 the four accused officers were formally charged and on 5 July 2000 the case was referred to the trial court for examination. On 16 August 2000 that court discovered that certain rights of the accused had been breached. In particular, a special procedure for bringing proceedings against prosecution officers had not been followed. Those breaches in domestic procedural rules meant that all the evidence so far gathered in the case was inadmissible.   The case was remitted for fresh investigation but later discontinued due to lack of evidence of a crime.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 July 2001 and declared partly admissible on 12 December 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and prosecution officers on 25 November 1999 and that there had been no effective investigation into their allegations.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment   Olga Maslova The Court noted that there had been an impressive and unambiguous body of evidence in support of Ms Maslova’s version of events. Indeed, the authorities, by bringing charges, referring the case for trial and then resuming and discontinuing the proceedings on numerous occasions, had conceded that her allegations had been credible. That evidence had only been dismissed due to procedural defects. The Government had not provided any satisfactory or convincing explanation to disprove Ms Maslova’s allegations, either in its domestic decisions or in the proceedings before the European Court. The Court therefore accepted Ms Maslova’s claims as to what had happened to her on 25 November 1999.   The Court reiterated that the rape of a detainee by an official of the State had to be considered to be an especially grave and abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the ease with which the offender could exploit the vulnerability and weakened resistance of his victim.   Consequently, the Court found that the physical violence, especially the cruel acts of repeated rape, to which Ms Maslova had been subjected, had amounted to torture, in violation of Article 3.   Fedor Nalbandov The Court considered that, throughout the domestic proceedings, Mr Nalbandov had presented a coherent and convincing account of the events of 25 November 1999, which was further corroborated by the evidence in the investigation file.   Furthermore, the Court drew inferences from the fact that its request of 12 December 2006 to the Government to submit a copy of the entire investigation file, seen as crucial to establishing the facts in so far as Mr Nalbandov had been concerned, had not been complied with. The Government had only produced copies of procedural decisions and refused to submit any other documents.   The Court therefore accepted Mr Nalbandov’s version of events and concluded that the duration of his ill-treatment and its physical and mental effects had, taken as a whole, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Concerning the alleged inadequacy of the investigation   The Court noted that the authorities appeared to have reacted diligently and promptly in order to identify and punish those responsible for Ms Malova’s ill-treatment. However, procedural errors had led to a stalemate in the criminal proceedings. In the absence of any plausible explanation for those errors, the Court found no other reason than the prosecution authorities’ obvious incompetence in conducting the investigation between 26 November 1999 and 5 July 2000. Accordingly, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into Ms   Maslova’s allegations of ill-treatment.   The Court found that reasoning to also hold true in respect of Mr Nalbandov’s allegations of the lack of an effective investigation and therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 3.   Articles 6 and 13   Given the findings under Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation, the Court found that no separate issues arose under Articles 6 and 13, both as concerned Ms Maslova and Mr Nalbandov.   Article 38 § 1 (a)   Referring to the importance of a Government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of the facts in cases such as the present one, the Court found that, in failing to submit the documents requested concerning the events of 25 November 1999, the Russian Government had failed to meet their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a).     ***   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.