CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   498 3.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CHEMBER v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Chember v. Russia (application no. 7188/03).   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 on account of the inhuman punishment of the applicant during his military service; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ inadequate investigation into that ill-treatment; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr   Chember 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Yevgeniy Vitalyevich Chember, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Shakhty (Russia). He was diagnosed with a second-degree disability in August 2001.   The case concerned Mr Chember’s complaint that, during his military service, he was ordered to do excessive exercise which has left him disabled.   In December 2000 the applicant, declared fit, was called up to do two years’ military service.   In February 2001 he was transferred to the 7 th company of a military unit in Astrakhan (Russia). In March 2001, as punishment for not cleaning the barracks adequately, he was ordered by Junior Sergeant Ch., in the presence of Lieutenant D., to do 350 knee bends. He collapsed during the exercise and was taken to hospital. Diagnosed with a spinal injury, he can no longer walk properly and in June 2001 was discharged from military service on medical grounds.   The applicant’s mother complained to the military authorities. A criminal inquiry was launched and statements were taken from the applicant’s commanders and fellow servicemen, who confirmed his claim that he suffered from a recurrent knee problem and was treated on several occasions in the company’s medical unit. In particular, Lieutenant D. stated that, due to the applicant’s condition, he had exempted him from physical exercise and squad drill.   Following that inquiry, the Caspian Fleet Prosecutor’s Office decided in May 2001 that no criminal proceedings would be brought against Lieutenant D. or Junior Sergeant Ch. as it found that no criminal offence had been committed. It referred, in particular, to the fact that all the servicemen of the applicant’s company had been questioned and had stated that Private Chember had not been harassed and his superiors had never been guilty of abuse of power against him.   In April 2003 Shakhty Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages on the ground that no finding of guilt had been established in the criminal inquiry. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed for the same reasons.   In the meantime, the applicant’s mother complained to a higher military prosecutor, who replied that her complaint could not be examined until such time as the town court returned the documents from the inquiry. The applicant has received no further information concerning that complaint.   The applicant’s attempts to claim a military pension have been rejected as the authorities maintained that the applicant’s disability was caused by a chronic condition from which he had suffered since childhood but with which he had first been diagnosed as a conscript. Therefore there was no proof that he had actually injured his spine during his military service.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3   February 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 and   13, the applicant complained that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment during his military service.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment   The Court reiterated that, even though challenging physical exercise might be part and parcel of military discipline, it should not endanger the health and well-being of conscripts or undermine their human dignity.   The Court noted that the applicant was subjected to forced physical exercise to the point of collapse and that the resulting injury had had long-term damage to his health. It was obvious from the statements made during the domestic inquiry that, despite having been fully aware of the applicant’s specific health problems and having exempted him from physical exercise and squad drill, his commanders had forced him to do precisely the kind of exercise which had put great strain on his knees and spine. The severity of that punishment could not be accounted for by any disciplinary or military necessity. The Court therefore considered that that punishment had been deliberately calculated to cause the applicant intense physical suffering. Accordingly, it found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman punishment, in violation of Article   3.   Concerning the inadequacy of the investigation   The Court found that the domestic inquiry had not been sufficiently thorough. No medical examination of the applicant had been commissioned and no reference had been made to any other medical document the applicant could have obtained. The only named witnesses mentioned in the decision of May 2001 had been the commanders against whom the applicant had made his complaint, Lieutenant D. and Junior Sergeant Ch.. The other witnesses had not been identified by name or rank and even their exact number was uncertain. The Government had submitted three servicemen’s statements whereas the inquiry had referred to “all the servicemen of the 7th company”, some 100 individuals. Indeed, those soldiers who could have been eyewitnesses to the alleged ill-treatment had not been questioned at all. Moreover, the applicant had not been heard in person and his version of events had not even been mentioned in the decision to not bring criminal proceedings. He had therefore not been able to formally claim the status of a victim or exercise his procedural rights.   Finally, the Court noted that the applicant had been caught up in a vicious circle of shifted responsibility where no domestic authority had reviewed or remedied the shortcomings of the inquiry. The town court, without an independent review, had simply based its judgment on the findings in the military authorities’ decision. The supervising military prosecutor had then failed to respond to the complaint lodged by the applicant’s mother as he considered that a response had no longer been necessary or required following the town court’s judgment.   Given those shortcomings, the Court found that the Russian authorities’ inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had not been thorough, adequate or efficient, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court reiterated that the criminal investigation had been ineffective and that the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been undermined. That was illustrated by the fact that the domestic courts, simply endorsing the investigator’s opinion without having assessed the facts of the case, had dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages.   The Court also noted a peculiar feature of Russian criminal law which had made the possibility of lodging a civil claim for damages conditional on the grounds on which the criminal proceedings had been discontinued. Therefore, the decision not to bring criminal proceedings against the applicant’s commanders on the ground that no offence had been committed had debarred the applicant from suing the military staff for damages in a civil court.   The Court therefore concluded that the applicant had been denied an effective remedy in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment during his military service, in violation of Article 13.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.