CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   566 31.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NADROSOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nadrosov v. Russia (application no. 9297/02).   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 ill-treatment of the applicant by the police; and, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Nadrosov 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Andrey Yuryevich Nadrosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a nine-year sentence in a correctional colony in Bataysk (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Nadrosov’s allegations that he was severely beaten by the police and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint.   On 29 October 2000, he was approached at a bus stop by two police officers accompanied by a person in civilian clothes. According to the applicant, the civilian punched him and the police officers, holding his hands behind his back, hit his head and back with a rubber truncheon, body searched him and pushed him into a police car. The beatings continued at the police station in order to force him into confessing to a theft.   According to the Government, relying on statements made in August 2005 by two police officers, and a statement by the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr Nadrosov was arrested on suspicion of having robbed truck drivers . Those police officers objected to the applicant’s statements that police officers had injured him, and the co-defendant stated that the police had not beaten him in his presence.   On 30 October 2000, emergency doctors recorded that the applicant had kidney and chest injuries. The applicant was transferred to hospital, where the preliminary diagnosis was confirmed, and multiple bruising below his ribs was also recorded. The applicant said that the injuries had been the result of a fall. The medical report issued on the applicant’s return to the detention unit at the police station, indicated in addition injuries behind the applicant’s ear and leg.   On 2 November 2000, the applicant’s mother filed a criminal complaint alleging that her son had been severely beaten by the police. Some days later, an assistant to the Proletarskiy District Prosecutor issued a decision not to bring criminal proceedings.   During the applicant’s trial, his lawyer insisted that his original statement about the nature of his injuries had been given in fear of reprisals and did not reflect the truth. On April 2001, the applicant was found guilty of aggravated robbery. The court dismissed the applicant’s complaint that he had been beaten, refusing to call for or examine the relevant medical documents. It did, however, hear the truck drivers, an emergency doctor and the police officer who had investigated the applicant’s criminal case. The applicant’s conviction was ultimately upheld on appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18   December 2001. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   3 in particular, the applicant alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment and that there was no effective investigation of the incident.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to the alleged ill-treatment   The Court was not convinced by the Government’s explanation that the applicant had been injured as a result of an accidental fall, even if the applicant himself had cited it as a cause of his injuries. Moreover, the statements relied on by the Government had been taken a certain period of time after the events and had not been made by eyewitnesses to the applicant’s arrest or to his subsequent questioning in the police station. The Court found it established that the injuries had been the result of the treatment of which the applicant had complained and for which the Government had been responsible. It considered that the use of force had been retaliatory in nature and had been aimed at debasing and driving the applicant into submission, which had to have caused him mental and physical suffering. Therefore, there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the alleged ill-treatment.   As to the investigation   The Court noted in particular that, although the inquiry had been launched promptly, it had not been thorough because the prosecutor had not requested an expert assessment of the applicant’s injuries or at least taken statements from the doctors who had treated the applicant. His decision had not even mentioned the medical reports listing the applicant’s injuries. The prosecutor had based his conclusions solely on testimonies given by two officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest, and had accepted too readily their denials that force had been used against the applicant. When examining his criminal case, the courts had relied heavily on the prosecutor’s decision and had not attempted to identify and question eyewitnesses to the applicant’s arrest or hear the police officers involved in the incident.   The Court concluded that the investigation carried out by the authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had not been effective, in violation of Article 3.   ***   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.