CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   920 16.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LEVINŢA v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Levinţa v. Moldova (application no.   17332/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the fact that the applicants were tortured while in police custody, that the authorities subsequently failed to remove them to safety; that they were given insufficient medical assistance while in detention; and that there was a failure to properly investigate their complaints of ill-treatment; a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,150, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Vitalie Levinţa, and his brother, Pavel Levinţa, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971 and 1974 respectively and live in Cahul (Moldova).   The case concerned in particular the applicants’ complaint that they were beaten while in detention in Moldova.   On 30 October 2000 the applicants were arrested in Russia. They were suspected of membership of a criminal organisation and of murdering, or attempting to murder, a number of persons in Moldova. On 3 November 2000 they were flown to Moldova, where they were detained in the Chişinău police inspectorate. According to the applicants, they were ill-treated throughout the afternoon of 3 November 2000 and the night of 3 to 4 November. In particular, they maintained that, made to wear gas masks with oxygen supply periodically interrupted, they were hit with rubber sticks on their bodies and the soles of their feet while in a position similar to “Palestinian hanging”. The Moldovan Government submitted that they had sustained injuries during their arrest in Russia.   In the afternoon of 4 November 2000, an ambulance was called to give emergency medical aid to Vitalie Levinţa who suffered notably from bruises on his face and head, and head trauma. The police refused his admission to a hospital because they considered that he was dangerous.   Medical examinations carried out the same day noted in particular that both applicants had injuries to the soles of their feet, in addition to several bruises to their heads and limbs.   The authorities refused to allow the applicants to meet their lawyers to give them proper legal advice before 8 November 2000. The applicants submitted that, no longer able to resist ill-treatment, they signed self-incriminating statements on 7 and 8 November 2000 in which they fully recognised their guilt of having committed the crimes with which they were charged.   The applicants’ lawyers complained that they had been ill-treated in order to obtain confessions from them. On 20 December 2000 Pavel Levinţa asked the Prosecutor General to have his arm examined by a doctor since he had allegedly lost all movement in it as a result of the ill-treatment by the police on 4 November 2000. The applicants also complained about ill-treatment before the trial court. The applicants were found guilty of various charges and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12   April 2003. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained in particular that: they were ill-treated in November 2000 in order to extract confessions from them and that they were subsequently deprived of sufficient medical assistance; that the authorities failed to properly investigate their allegations of ill-treatment; and, that they were arbitrarily convicted on the basis of their self-incriminating statements, given as a result of ill-treatment. They relied on Articles   3 and 6.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Ill-treatment   The Court found that the Moldovan Government had not provided any reasonable explanation as to why Vitalie Levinţa had had to have emergency medical treatment after one day in detention in Moldova. Moreover, they had failed to provide a plausible explanation at least for some of the injuries sustained by the applicants while in detention in Moldova. In particular, whatever the cause of the other injuries, those on the soles of the applicants’ feet (similar to those sustained in the practice known as falaka ) could not have been caused as part of a struggle during their arrest or detention. The Court found that such injuries had revealed a clear intent to cause severe pain and could only be considered as torture.   The Court underlined that, after the initial ill-treatment of 4 November 2000, the applicants had not been allowed to see their lawyers for several days, which had to have made them feel even more vulnerable to any abuse. That failing had been an especially serious one due to the credible allegations made by the lawyers that their clients were being ill-treated in order to obtain confessions from them.   The Court further stressed that after the applicants had been subjected to torture on 3-4   November 2000, they had a reasonable ground to be afraid of possible further ill-treatment by the same officers. Thus, the failure to transfer the applicants to a safe place on 4   November 2000 had been a continuation of the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected.   Lack of requisite medical assistance   The Court noted that, despite the medical emergency team’s recommendation of in-patient treatment, the authorities had chosen to leave Vitalie Levinţa in detention at the police inspectorate, although they had known that the level of medical assistance available there had been insufficient. Nor had Pavel Levinţa been examined by a doctor following his request for treatment of his arm despite the fact that he had claimed that it had lost its function as a result of ill-treatment. Accordingly, the Court concluded that both applicants had been deprived of the medical assistance which they had required while in detention, contrary to Article 3.   Failure to carry out an effective investigation   The Court noted that the Moldovan Government had failed to submit a copy of any decision from the competent authorities concerning the complaints by the applicants’ lawyers alleging ill-treatment. It also observed that Pavel Levinţa’s complaint of 20 December 2000 had not been examined at all in practice. The Court held that the State had failed to carry out a thorough investigation immediately after the events. The Moldovan courts’ analysis, made approximately two years after the ill-treatment complained of, and limited to examining the documents in the file, could not have remedied that failure.   The Court concluded therefore that the authorities had breached the provisions of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court found that the mere fact that the domestic courts had actually relied on evidence obtained as a result of torture, regardless of   the extent to which the courts   had grounded their judgments   on such evidence to convict the applicants, had rendered their entire trial unfair, in violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 3 and Article 13   The Court considered that in view of its findings in respect of the complaints under Article   3 and Article   6   §   1, no separate issue arose under those Articles.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-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.