CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 février 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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   89 7.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TRAJKOSKI [1] v. “THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [2] in the case of Trajkoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no.   13191/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s allegation of police brutality; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   635 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Cvetan Trajkoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Prilep (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The case concerned Mr Trajkoski’s allegations that he was subjected to police brutality when trying to report a possible explosion at a petrol station located near to his home and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.   On 30 January 2001 Mr Trajkoski, accompanied by his wife and Mr P.N., went to Prilep police station to report a possible fire and explosion at the petrol station. He alleged that he parked his car in front of the police station and, at a warden’s request, moved it to a nearby car park. When he entered the station a policeman pushed him and pointed a gun to his head. A further seven or eight police officers then grabbed him by his arms, legs and hair and threw him against some stairs. The officers beat him and used offensive language.   The Government denied the applicant’s allegations. It claimed that the applicant ignored police officers’ orders to move his car and leave the police station. When forcibly removed from the station, the applicant actively resisted.   The applicant submitted two medical certificates and a report concerning the injuries he had allegedly sustained during the incident. The certificates, dated 30   January 2001 and 11 May 2006, both noted that the applicant’s right elbow, right temple and left hip were sore and that he had scratches on his right ankle and toe. The report, dated 23 May 2006, recorded bruising to the applicant’s left elbow, below his left eye and on his left hip and a scratch on his left shin.   On 30 January 2001 Mr Trajkoski requested the Sector for Internal Control of the Ministry of the Interior to investigate the incident. On 23 August 2001 a report was drawn up which concluded that the police officers had not used excessive force in their attempts to restrain the applicant.   Criminal proceedings brought by the applicant against one of the police officers, Mr P.R., were dismissed as no evidence of an offence was found. The public prosecutor questioned officer P.R. as well as other police officers and established that the applicant had not had a gun pointed at him or been ill-treated.   In subsidiary criminal proceedings the applicant repeated his allegations of having been beaten by the police. He identified Mr P.R. as one of the police officers involved and left it to the court to identify the remaining four officers. He also requested the trial court to summon eyewitnesses to the incident, namely his wife and Mr P.N.. On 2 July 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s subsidiary complaint as incomplete because he had not identified the remaining four police officers. No comment was made as to the charges against Mr P.R..   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 September 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   Relying on Article 3, the applicant alleged that he was subjected to police brutality at Prilep police station on 30 January 2001.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the alleged ill-treatment   Both parties agreed that the police had removed Mr Trajkoski by force from Prilep police station on 30 January 2001. However, they disagreed as to how the applicant’s injuries had occurred during that incident.   The Court considered that the applicant’s injuries might have been caused at least partly by the applicant’s own provocative behaviour. Furthermore, not only had the applicant not provided sufficient evidence to support his version of events but the evidence he had provided was inconsistent. In particular, the description of the injuries noted on the medical certificates contradicted those recorded in the report both as concerned the side of the applicant’s body which had been injured and as concerned the nature of the injuries.   In conclusion, the evidence available did not enable the Court to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at Prilep police station on 30 January 2001. The Court therefore held that that there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s allegations of police brutality.   Concerning the alleged lack of an effective investigation   The Court considered that Mr Trajkoski’s complaints to the Ministry of the Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office had raised a reasonable suspicion that the applicant could have been injured by the police and which necessitated an official investigation. To conform to the requirements of Article 3, that investigation had to be prompt and capable of identifying and punishing those responsible.   The Court noted that the Ministry of the Interior’s report had only been drawn up nearly seven months after the applicant had made his complaint. The Government had given no explanation for that delay.   Furthermore, the public prosecutor had based his conclusions uniquely on police officers’ statements.   Lastly, the trial court’s insistence in the subsidiary criminal proceedings that the applicant identify the other four police officers had been excessively formalistic. Instead of consulting official police records, which would have easily identified those police officers, the trial court rejected the applicant’s complaint as incomplete and took no further action. Moreover, there was no explanation as to why the trial court had not continued the proceedings against Mr   P.R. or taken any steps to hear witnesses suggested by the applicant or the doctor who had examined him.   The Court therefore concluded that the investigation into the applicant’s claim that he had been injured by the police had not been thorough and effective, in 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) 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] The initial title of the case was Trajkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . The title was modified since only Mr Trajkoski’s Article 3 complaint remained for consideration. [2] 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. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.