CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 avril 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 } .s4DD72993 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:center } .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   257 10.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DZELADINOV AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dzeladinov and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no.   13252/02).   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 alleged ill-treatment of the applicants by the police; and, a violation of Article 3 , concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 3,000   euros   (EUR) to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses (to be paid to the European Roma Rights Centre). (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The five applicants – Amdi Dzeladinov, Dudzihan Kamilov, Remzie Durmišova, Dagistan Alilov, and Mefail (Meta) Asanovski – are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1975, 1966, 1977, 1977 and 1966 respectively, and live in Štip (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). They are all Roma.   The case concerned the applicants’ claim that they were assaulted by the police, following a brawl outside a restaurant in Štip where they had been taking part in a Roma celebration.   According to the applicants, at around midnight on 2 August 1998, a group of Roma leaving the restaurant were involved in a fight with Z.S., a wrestling champion who worked as a fitness instructor for the police. Z.S. called the police and around ten police officers came to the scene and assaulted people in the restaurant, including the applicants, who claimed they were beaten with truncheons, kicked and punched. Ms Durmišova, who was seven-months pregnant at the time, said she had to go to hospital and that the doctors initially refused to examine her because her assailants were police officers. Mr Kamilov, Mr Alilov, and Mr Asanovski were taken to the local police station where the beatings allegedly continued. The next day, in response to an earlier police summons, Mr Dzeladinov went to the police station, where he claimed that around six police officers hit him with a truncheon, punched and kicked him and that a gun was held to his head. The applicants provided photographs of bruises on their backs, heads and buttocks. They also claimed that they were refused medical treatment because they could not pay. The four male applicants alleged that the police repeatedly insulted them on account of their ethnic origin.   According to the Government, after the police were called about the fight, three officers went to the scene, where Z.S. identified Mr Dzeladinov as one of his attackers. As a large group of up to 80 Roma gathered around and prevented them from arresting Mr Dzeladinov, another patrol of five officers came as reinforcements. Several shots were fired in the air as the crowd started to throw stones, bottles and other objects. Despite the warning, the crowd continued to attack. The police officers then used batons to disperse the crowd and took Mr Kamilov and Mr Asanovski to the police station. They were questioned and released, it having been established that they were not involved in the attack on Z.S. No force was used against them at the police station. According to the medical records of the emergency unit of Štip Hospital, two police officers sustained minor injuries; no-one else involved in the fight or anyone apprehended by the police asked for medical assistance. At her request, a pregnant woman was taken to hospital by a medical team, but no injuries to the foetus or mother were detected at any stage.   On 11 August 1998 the applicants filed a criminal complaint, alleging that they were tortured by police officers, producing photographs, written statements and a medical certificate in support of their allegation. However, the applicants were never informed that any action was taken by the prosecuting authorities in relation to their complaint.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 December 2001 and declared partly admissible on 6 March 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that, following a brawl outside a restaurant, they were assaulted by police officers. They further alleged that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into their complaint of ill-treatment. They relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Alleged ill-treatment   The Court noted as undisputed that some of the applicants were involved in a fight in the street with Z.S.. However, no medical certificate was ever issued which could have shed light on the cause of any injuries sustained by the applicants and the Court could not establish how the injuries could have been inflicted from the photographs submitted.   The Government stated that the use of force had been absolutely necessary, justified and proportionate. However, it had to be noted that no charges were brought against the applicants for their alleged involvement in the disturbance.   Given the inconsistencies and the lack of firm evidence of the applicants’ alleged injuries, the Court found no cogent elements that would support the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment. Neither could the Court establish whether the force used by the police to suppress the alleged disorder was excessive. Furthermore, the Court found it unsubstantiated that the applicants had sustained such injuries that a refusal to treat them without payment at the hospital in itself amounted to a violation of Article 3. The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the alleged ill-treatment.   Lack of an effective investigation   The Court noted that a criminal complaint was lodged about the alleged police brutality nine days after the incident, with photographs of the applicants’ injuries and a medical certificate as evidence. The complaint raised at least a reasonable suspicion that the applicants’ alleged injuries could have been caused by the police, which warranted an investigation by the authorities. The public prosecutor was therefore under a duty to investigate. However, he took no steps to find any evidence confirming or contradicting the account given by the applicants.   In addition, the inactivity of the public prosecutor prevented the applicants from taking over the investigation as subsidiary complainants and denied them access to subsequent challenges in the context of the criminal proceedings. To date, the applicants were still barred from taking over the investigation as the public prosecutor had yet to take a decision to dismiss the complaint.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been has been a violation of Article 3 given the lack of an investigation into the applicants’ claim that they were injured by the police.   Article 13   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 13.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.