CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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   546 24.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (application no. 41461/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant having been severely beaten by prison warders; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) because the applicant was not given a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge a witness statement in the criminal proceedings against him.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Romanov 20,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Anatolyevich Romanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lived in Ivanovo (Russia) until his arrest in October 2000 on suspicion of robbery.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s allegation that he was severely beaten by prison warders and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate that allegation.   Mr Romanov was convicted of aggravated robbery on 9 January 2002 and sentenced to 11   years and three months’ imprisonment, subsequently reduced to nine years and three   months . The domestic courts based that decision, in particular, on two depositions made by the alleged victim of the robbery, Mr I., in April and May 2001 during the pre-trial investigation. Mr I. identified the applicant as one of the men who had attacked and robbed him in October 2000. Out of the country until 3 December 2001, he did not appear at the trial and his depositions were therefore read out on 29 November 2001.   According to the applicant, on 22 June 2001 prison warders of detention facility IZ-37/1 where he was being held entered his cell and, in order to force the inmates out, hit them with rubber truncheons. The warders continued to beat the applicant even when he had been forced into the corridor and fallen to the floor.   The applicant was immediately examined by the prison dermatologist who recorded linear bruising on his legs and back. Subsequently taken to the prison hospital, doctors noted that the applicant had sustained a chest injury caused by a blunt object. He also had an operation for a ruptured spleen.   Relying on a report of the incident drawn up by the detention facility on 23 June 2001, the Government submitted that the warders had had to resort to force due to unrest in the applicant’s cell which had risked turning into a generalised prison riot. It also relied on a written statement by the warder who had beaten the applicant: he testified that the applicant had been injured as a result of “selective application of special measures”.   The detention facility’s administration reported the incident to Ivanovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 25 June 2001. The prosecutor’s office issued a report of its inquiry on 3 July 2001 in which it refused to bring criminal proceedings against the warders as it considered their actions to have been lawful. The report found it established that injuries recorded on the applicant’s feet, knees and back had been the result of his physically resisting the warders. The conclusions in that report were based mainly on testimonies given by the warders involved in the incident; inmates who had allegedly been present during the incident stated that they had not seen the beatings and the applicant’s testimony was not considered credible.   The applicant subsequently brought judicial proceedings in which he sought compensation for the injuries he had sustained. The courts, citing the July 2001 report, found that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful but that the applicant had sustained serious life-threatening damage and that the detention facility had not had sufficient control over its warders. The applicant was therefore awarded 10,000   Russian   roubles   (RUB), (approximately EUR   330), later increased to RUB   30,000 (EUR   960).   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21   October 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he was severely beaten by prison warders in the detention facility where he was being held and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegation. He also alleged that he was not given an adequate opportunity to confront, in particular, one of the witnesses for the prosecution at his trial, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (d) (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the alleged ill-treatment The parties agreed that the applicant’s injuries, as recorded in the medical reports by the prison dermatologist and hospital, had been caused on 22 June 2001 by the use of force by prison warders, namely that they had beaten him with rubber truncheons.   The Court accepted that the use of rubber truncheons in the applicant’s case had had a legal basis under the Penitentiary Institutions Act and the Custody Act. It also accepted that use of force might, on occasions, be necessary to ensure prison security, maintain order or prevent crime in penitentiary facilities.   However, the Court did not see any reason why the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant had been necessary. Indeed, the warders’ actions had been grossly disproportionate to what the applicant had been accused of, disobedience. The warders might admittedly have needed to resort to physical force in order to remove inmates from their cell but the Court was not convinced that hitting them with a truncheon had been conducive to achieving that aim.   Furthermore, the Court did not consider it established that the applicant had actively resisted the warders. It was peculiar that the detention facility’s documents had simply mentioned that special measures had been applied to the applicant; he had not been listed as one of the instigators of or active participants in the incident. Mention of an active role by the applicant had first been made in the prosecutor’s office decision of 3 July 2001. That discrepancy was not explained in the subsequent judicial proceedings as the domestic courts did not assess the extent of the applicant’s participation in the incident.   Moreover, the report of 3 July 2001 which had referred to injuries to the applicant’s feet had supported the applicant’s submission that warders had continued hitting him even when he had been lying on the floor. The Government had not challenged that submission and had not provided any plausible explanation as to how those injuries had occurred.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the use of rubber truncheons on the applicant had been a form of reprisal and, even worse, had continued even after the applicant had complied with the order to leave his cell and had fallen on the floor. That punitive violence had been deliberately intended to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear and humiliation and to break his physical or moral resistance. The applicant’s injuries had to have caused him serious physical pain and intense mental suffering and had resulted in long-term damage to his health. The Court therefore held that the applicant had been subjected to treatment which could be described as torture, in violation of Article 3.   Concerning the alleged inadequacy of the prosecution’s inquiry and the judicial proceedings The Court observed that, in cases of wilful ill-treatment, a violation of Article 3 could not be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim because, if that were the case, it would be possible for the State to avoid the prosecution and punishment of those responsible and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment would be ineffective in practice.   The Court therefore decided to assess the authorities’ determination to prosecute those responsible for the applicant’s ill-treatment.   As concerned the promptness of the investigation, it had taken the facility administration three days to inform the prosecution authorities about the incident, a delay which could have resulted in the loss of evidence.   As concerned the thoroughness, the inquiry decision of 3 July 2001 had relied on three medical reports drafted only by prison doctors which had provided limited medical information and had not included any explanation by the applicant regarding his complaints. Similarly, the inquiry’s assessment of the evidence had been selective and inconsistent, its conclusions having been based mainly on the warders’ testimonies, whose credibility should also have been questioned. Indeed, it was curious that it had been impossible to identify those inmates who had been eyewitnesses to the beatings and who could have provided relevant information on the incident. Nor had there at any point been any attempt to analyse the degree of force used by the warders and whether it had been necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. The prosecution had, without any independent evidence, found that the warders had lawfully assaulted the applicant due to his physical resistance.   Finally, the domestic courts had simply relied on the findings of the 3 July 2001 report; eyewitnesses to the incident, including the applicant himself and the warders who had beaten him, had never been questioned personally. The Court was particularly struck by the fact that the courts had awarded the applicant compensation due to the detention facility’s mere lack of sufficient control over its warders.   In view of those failings, the Court considered that the Russian authorities’ reaction to a grave incident of deliberate ill-treatment by its agents had been inadequate and inefficient and that the measures they had taken had failed to provide appropriate redress to the applicant, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d)   The Court considered that Mr I.’s depositions during the pre-trial investigation and read out at trial had constituted virtually the sole direct and objective evidence on which the domestic courts had based its findings of the applicant’s guilt.   In particular, Mr I.’s depositions had been read out at the trial hearing on 29 November 2001, that is to say just a few days before his presence at the hearing could have been ensured, on his return to Russia on 3 December 2001. In the Court’s view, granting a five-day stay in proceedings in which the applicant had stood accused of a very serious offence and had risked a long term of imprisonment, would not have constituted an insurmountable hindrance to expediency requirements.   Furthermore, the applicant had not been provided with the opportunity to follow the manner in which Mr I. had been interrogated by the investigator in April and May 2001 or to have questions put to him. Nor had those statements been video-recorded.   Finding that there was no proper substitute for personal observation of a leading witness’ oral evidence at trial, the Court concluded that the applicant had not had a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge Mr I.’s statements and consequently his trial had not been fair, in violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d).     Judges Spielmann and Malinverni expressed a joint concurring opinion, and Judge Malinivieri, joined by Judge   Kovler, expressed a further concurring opinion. The texts are appended to the judgment.     ***   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.