CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mai 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .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   377 27.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RODIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 22893/05).   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 applicants’ detention with other prisoners in the ordinary part of Zenica Prison; no violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning their detention conditions in the prison hospital unit; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Mr   Rodić and Mr   Baković 4,000   euros   (EUR) each, and EUR   2,000 each to Mr   Pušara and Mr   Knežević. The applicants were awarded, jointly, EUR   6,500, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Milorad   Rodić, Vlastimir Pušara and Zoran Knežević, are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ivan Baković is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. They were born in 1946, 1953, 1966 and 1972 respectively and are currently detained in Mostar Prison in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were all convicted of war crimes against Bosniac (at the time, Bosnian Muslim) civilians during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.   The case concerned the applicants’ detention, initially in an ordinary wing of a prison with a majority of Bosniac prisoners, and then separately, in the prison hospital unit.   Between August 2004 and May 2005 the applicants were each sent to Zenica Prison, the only maximum-security prison in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a constituent entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The prison population was approximately 90 per cent Bosniac.   Two of the applicants (Mr Pušara and Mr Knežević) were informed that they could not be transferred to another prison in the Republika Srpska (the other constituent entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina).   On 2 May 2005 at 6 p.m. offensive graffiti referring to Mr Rodić and Mr Baković was discovered in the prison canteen. Those responsible were never identified.   On 4 June 2005 at 9 p.m., following the screening of a video which showed a 1995 killing of Bosniacs from Srebrenica, a prisoner lured Mr Pušara into his cell and punched him in the eye with a clenched fist. On 7 June 2005 Mr Pušara was taken to hospital. According to an official report, the attack was ethnically motivated, the attacker had a piece of glass in his hand and the consequences could have been more serious had it not been for the intervention of another prisoner.   On 5 June 2005 at 4 p.m. another prisoner attacked Mr Baković in the prison canteen. The prison guards intervened after Mr Baković had received several blows to the head. He was taken to hospital.   On 8 June 2005 the applicants declared a hunger strike to attract public attention to their situation and were immediately placed in separate accommodation in the prison hospital unit.   The same day the prisoners responsible for the attacks were sentenced to 20 days’ solitary confinement and an investigation was opened by an ad hoc commission into the attacks.   On 15 June 2005 the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina ordered the applicants’ transfer to a prison in the Republika Srpska, for security reasons.   On 19 June 2005 the commission issued its final report criticising the prison authorities for   failing to protect the applicants. In their defence, the authorities cited a lack of prison staff, space or any other maximum-security prison in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the fact that prison transfers between the entities were not envisaged. On 21 June 2005 the Federation Ministry ordered that the applicants remain in Zenica Prison, in its hospital unit, until further notice.   On 1 July 2005 the applicants discontinued their hunger strike in response to a request from the European Court.   On 18 July 2005 another prisoner was found guilty of inciting the attacks on the applicants and sentenced to 15 days’ solitary confinement.   On 12 August 2005 the applicants complained unsuccessfully to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina about the failure to enforce the decision of 15 June 2005 ordering their transfer to another prison and about the conditions of their detention in Zenica Prison.   On 24 November 2005 Mr Baković was transferred to Mostar Prison, another prison in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   From 28 November 2005 until 9 December 2005 the three applicants still in Zenica Prison went on a new hunger strike protesting against the conditions of their detention in the hospital unit. On 14 December 2005 and 19 October 2006 they were also transferred to Mostar Prison.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22   June 2005.   On 24 and 29 June 2005, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures), the Court requested that the applicants end their hunger strike. On 13 September 2005 the case was granted priority under Rule 41 (case priority) of the Rules of Court.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that they were persecuted by fellow prisoners from the time of their arrival in Zenica Prison until they were provided with separate accommodation in the prison hospital unit. They alleged that the various incidents ranged between spitting on their food and spilling water on their beds to death threats and beatings. They further complained about their detention conditions in the hospital unit. They relied on Articles   2, 3 and   13.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court observed that it would only be in exceptional circumstances that a physical attack by agents of the State or by third parties which did not result in death might be in breach of Article 2. Even if Article 2 were applicable in the applicants’ case, in view of the nature and degree of the force used against them, the facts of the case did not disclose any failure by the authorities to protect their lives. The complaint under Article 2 was therefore inadmissible.   Article 3   Detention with other prisoners in Zenica Prison The Court did not find the Government’s policy of integrating those convicted of war crimes into the mainstream prison system to be inherently inhuman or degrading. However, it did not rule out that the implementation of that policy might raise issues under Article 3.   The Court recalled that it was well known that the three main ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) were at war against each other from 1992 until 1995. Because of all the atrocities committed during the war, inter-ethnic relations were still strained and occurrences of ethnically-motivated violence were still relatively frequent during the relevant period. Serious incidents of ethnically-motivated violence directed against prisoners of Serb and Croat origin had been reported in Zenica Prison. Taking into consideration the number of Bosniacs in the prison and the nature of the applicants’ offences (war crimes against Bosniacs), it was clear that their detention there entailed a serious risk to their physical well-being.   Despite that, the applicants were placed in ordinary cell blocks, where they had to share a cell with up to 20 other prisoners and share communal facilities with an even larger number of prisoners. Furthermore, Zenica Prison was experiencing a serious shortage of staff during the period under examination. However, structural shortcomings did not alter the obligation of the State to adequately secure the well-being of prisoners.   It was significant that, notwithstanding the existence of a serious risk to the applicants’ physical well-being, no specific security measures were introduced in Zenica Prison for several months. The applicants were provided with separate accommodation in the prison hospital only after the attacks of 4 and 5 June 2005, their declaration of a hunger strike and the consequent media attention, which occurred almost ten months after the first of the applicants came to the prison. The prison management was also clearly aware of the seriousness of the applicants’ situation throughout that period.   The Court concluded that the applicants’ physical well-being was not adequately secured from the time of their arrival at Zenica Prison until they were provided with separate accommodation in the hospital (a period which lasted between one and ten months depending on the applicant). The Court therefore considered that the hardship the applicants endured, in particular the constant mental anxiety concerning the threat of physical violence, was in violation of Article 3.   Detention conditions in Zenica Prison hospital The Court noted that the applicants were allocated more than 4   m² of personal space (the minimum requirement for a single inmate in multi-occupancy cells according to the standards set by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment). While their rooms were equipped with neither a toilet nor running water, the Government claimed that the applicants had unlimited access to the communal sanitation facilities (including at night). The applicants did not deny that claim. The applicants did not deny either the adequacy of their access to natural light, ventilation, heating and artificial lighting. There was no indication that the facilities in issue were such as to render their use inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3.   The Court further observed that, having been under special protection, the applicants could not benefit from the entire range of available work, educational and recreational activities. It had to be noted, however, that they were able to watch television and obtain reading materials without restrictions. In addition, the Court considered that they spent adequate time outside the hospital unit every day. Overall, the Court found that the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the Zenica Prison hospital unit were not in violation of Article 3.   Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3   The Court found that the applicants had had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their Article 3 complaints. There had therefore been a violation of 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.