CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; 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   541 22.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BOYKO IVANOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Boyko Ivanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 69138/01).   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 ill-treatment inflicted on Mr   Ivanov while he was in police custody; and, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the Bulgarian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   271 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Boyko Lechev Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Burgas (Bulgaria).   The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated by police officers while he was in their custody.   In November 1994 Mr Ivanov was arrested on suspicion of robbery and taken into police custody at regional police headquarters in Burgas.   On 11 November 1994 he was examined by a forensic medical officer. According to the medical certificate the applicant had a number of bruises and superficial swellings on his face, chest, back, elbows, thighs and knees. The doctor’s conclusion was that the injuries had been caused by solid, blunt objects, possibly in the manner described by the applicant, who had reported being beaten with truncheons, baseball bats and boxing gloves. He also expressed the opinion that the injuries had been inflicted two to three days before his examination and it was consequently possible that the blows had been struck on 8 November 1994, as the applicant alleged.   Mr Ivanov was released on bail on 29 January 1996. In May 1996 he lodged a complaint with the Sliven military prosecutor’s office alleging that he had been ill-treated.   When interviewed in May 1998 the applicant mentioned the name of one of the officers who had allegedly beaten him and described the face of a second officer. He also said that he would be able to recognise the men who had ill-treated him.   Several police officers were interviewed in October 1998. They said that to their knowledge the applicant had not been beaten.   On 29 March 1999 the military prosecutor issued a discontinuation order in which he said that the applicant had been arrested on 8 November 1994 but had not lodged a complaint until 1996, and that, in view of the time that had elapsed between the applicant’s arrest and his complaint to the military prosecution service, it was impossible to establish whether the applicant had actually been beaten or not.   In November 1999 the applicant asked the public prosecutor’s office to set aside the discontinuation order. His application was automatically forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office, but does not appear to have been examined.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 July 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mark Villiger (Swiss), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Mr   Ivanov complained that he had undergone ill-treatment while in police custody and asserted that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into his allegations.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As regards the allegations of ill-treatment The Court observed that on 11 November 1994 a doctor reported injuries to the applicant’s person inflicted by solid, blunt objects. It was therefore not contested that the applicant had been the victim of violence during the three days preceding the medical examination. However, during that period the applicant had already been in the authorities’ charge, as his arrest had taken place at least three days before the date of the examination. The Bulgarian Government had provided no plausible explanation of the cause of the injuries reported and had not supplied any relevant information capable of raising doubts about the applicant’s account of the events.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant.   As regards the investigation The Court noted a number of facts suggesting that the investigation opened following the applicant’s complaint had not been thorough and effective. It criticised in particular the fact that the military prosecutor had hastily concluded that there was no proof that the applicant had been beaten, notwithstanding the information in the medical certificate. In addition, no confrontation had taken place, despite the contradictions between the applicant’s version of the events and the statements made by the police officers. Nor had the authorities thought of organising an identity parade, even though the applicant had said that he would be able to recognise the persons who had inflicted the injuries concerned.   Consequently, the Court considered that the investigation conducted in the present case had been too cursory to satisfy the requirements of objectivity, thoroughness and effectiveness. It noted that the authorities had apparently not attempted to establish the causes of the applicant’s injuries but had evaded the issue by pointing to the lapse of time between the events the applicant complained of and the lodging of his complaint.   The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 3 in that the Bulgarian authorities had not adequately examined the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.     ***   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.