CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 juin 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 } .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   446 17.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VICTOR SAVIŢCHI v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Victor Saviţchi v. Moldova (application no. 81/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights both on account of Victor Saviţchi’s ill-treatment by the police and Moldova’s inadequate investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, Mr   Saviţchi was awarded 6,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Victor Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. He was a police inspector.   The case concerned, among other things, Mr   Saviţchi’s allegation that he was beaten by the police when arrested for taking a bribe and that his allegation was confirmed by a video recording.   On 3   August 2000, Mr   Saviţchi was arrested for taking a 4,000 United States dollar (USD) bribe in exchange for a favour in one of his cases. The applicant’s arrest in a bar was filmed by the police.   In one of the recordings, in particular, the applicant could be seen held down by several police officers, being kicked in his chest. At one point, two blows could also be heard off-camera. During the struggle, the applicant attempted to bend down and was splashed by officers with beer and water. The applicant, eventually forced to sit down, was examined for phosphorescent dust used to mark the bribe money. The officers could be seen taking USD   4,000 from the applicant’s shirt pocket.   According to the applicant, he did not accept a bribe. He claimed that the money was put in his shirt pocket by police officers during the struggle.   On 5 June 2001, Bălţi Regional Court acquitted the applicant of bribe-taking. It concluded that the evidence against the applicant had been obtained in breach of the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had been entrapped. It also noted from the recording of the arrest that the applicant had been surrounded by police officers, who had twisted his hands and kicked him in his liver, and that blows could equally be heard off-camera.   That judgment was, however, subsequently quashed and, during the re-trial of the case, the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was mainly based on statements by the two people who had given the bribe, audio recordings of conversations between them and the applicant and the testimonies of the five police officers who had carried out the arrest. The video was examined but, without going into any more detail, it was found that the applicant had been caught red-handed and that police officers had had to resort to force to prevent the applicant from destroying evidence.   The applicant’s appeals against that decision were ultimately dismissed in 2003.   In the meantime, the applicant’s complaints concerning his ill-treatment by the police to the General Prosecutor’s Office and to Râşcani District Court were dismissed. The Prosecutor’s office based its decision on statements made by several of the police officers, who denied any involvement in ill-treatment. The district court examined the case without viewing the video recordings of the arrest.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26   November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), Ledi Bianku (Albanian), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), the applicant alleged that he was beaten by the police during his arrest.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment   The Court observed from one of the video recordings that the applicant had been beaten by one of the police officers, while he had been held down by several other officers. That conclusion had been confirmed by Bălţi Regional Court in its judgment of 5   June 2001. Furthermore, it was clear from the struggle that the applicant had not been attempting to hit the officers but to simply bend down. In any event, the applicant had been outnumbered by five to one by men who had been roughly his size and build. The Court considered that the beating had not been strictly necessary and that the police officers could certainly have calmed the applicant down using less brutality. It therefore held unanimously that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment which it considered inhuman and degrading, in violation of Article   3.   Concerning the investigation   The Court was surprised by the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office and Râşcani District Court had only questioned certain police officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest and had ignored the applicant’s request for them to examine the video recordings, normally considered the most reliable source of evidence in such complaints. Indeed, in its judgment of 5   June 2001, Bălţi Regional Court had considered that recording conclusive evidence to prove that the applicant had been ill-treated as alleged. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article   3 concerning the inadequacy of the Moldovan courts’ examination of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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.