CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 avril 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   283 2.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Muradova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 22684/05).   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 excessive force used in respect of Ms Muradova during a demonstration in protest of the 2003 presidential election results, and of there not having been an effective investigation into her complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 25,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mahira Sadraddin qizi Muradova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1949 and lives in Baku.   The case concerned Ms   Muradova’s complaint that she became blind in one eye after being hit by a police officer during a demonstration and that no effective investigation was carried out into the incident.   On 16 October 2003 supporters of the opposition presidential candidate, who had just lost the election, gathered in the centre of Baku to protest. Violent clashes broke out between the demonstrators and the large numbers of anti-riot police and military personnel deployed. Ms   Muradova, present when the demonstration was being dispersed by the law-enforcement forces, was seriously injured. She and the Azerbaijani Government, however, presented different versions of what exactly happened to her on that day. According to Ms   Muradova, a police officer hit her right eye with a truncheon when she asked him for help in getting up from the ground. The authorities submitted that her injury was not caused by the police, but was the result of her having fallen down on a blunt object.   The same day, Ms Muradova was taken for emergency treatment. The following day, she was operated on in a specialised medical institution; despite the surgery, she became permanently blind in her right eye.   In February 2004, Ms Muradova filed a criminal complaint concerning the incident. By that time, the prosecution had already brought criminal proceedings into the public disorder generated by the demonstrators during the incident. No separate criminal proceedings were brought as a result of Ms Muradova’s complaint. In March and September 2004, two forensic reports were issued concerning her injuries. While both reports confirmed the seriousness of her condition, neither of them concluded with certainty the causes of her injury. Ms   Muradova, six policemen present at or near the demonstration as well as two employees in the pharmacy to which the applicant was taken immediately after she was injured gave witness statements. The latter eight witnesses testified that they did not know the applicant, had not seen her during the demonstration or at the pharmacy seeking first aid. In November 2004, the criminal investigation was discontinued due to lack of evidence in support of Ms   Muradova’s version of events.   In the meantime, in March 2004, Ms Muradova brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for her injury. The court heard three witnesses, called by her, two of whom submitted that they had seen her having fallen to the ground among the demonstrators, as well as how a police officer had hit her with a truncheon in the right eye. Ultimately, the domestic courts rejected her claim due to lack of proof.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 January 2003 and is jointly examined for admissibility and on the merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajic (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Soren Nielsen, Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms   Muradova alleged that on 16 October 2003 she was hit in the eye with a truncheon by a police officer during a demonstration, and that the incident was not investigated adequately.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (as regards the applicant’s injury)   The Court first noted that, on 16 October 2003, a particularly large-scale confrontation, involving a high degree of violence on both sides, had taken place between protesters and law-enforcement officers. It also observed that, on that day, Ms   Muradova had been present when the confrontation had occurred, that her right eye had been seriously injured and that the police had used force, including the use of truncheons, in order to disperse the protesters and quell the disorder.   The Court considered that Ms   Muradova had produced sufficiently strong evidence in support of her version of the incident, namely her medical records and witness statements. Indeed, the Court was particularly astonished at how the domestic court had dismissed Ms   Muradova’s civil claim for compensation without any real legal reasoning. Nor had the authorities justified the degree of force used against Ms   Muradova, given that she had not been violent during the demonstration, but had tried to leave it to avoid danger, and had not been arrested or prosecuted in relation to the events. The Court therefore held that the force used by the police in respect of Ms   Muradova had been excessive, in violation of Article 3.   Article 3 (as regards the investigation)   The Court also found that although a criminal investigation had been launched, it had been unclear whether it had actually examined the actions of the police during the demonstration. In addition, the forensic reports had been issued only after nine months and one year after the events, respectively. Indeed, the conclusion in one of the reports had not excluded the possibility that Ms   Muradova’s injury had been caused by a hard blunt object; the Court considered that that could well have been a truncheon. Lastly, the investigating authorities had not attempted to seek or hear testimony from the witnesses presented by Ms   Muradova during the civil proceedings. That omission in particular had contributed to the general ineffectiveness of the investigation. Accordingly, the Court held that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into Ms   Muradova’s complaint, in violation of Article 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.