CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .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 } .s2A13E303 { color:#2e97d3 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   470 16.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GURGUROV v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Gurgurov v. Moldova (application no. 7045/08). The case concerned the torture of the applicant in police custody and the attempt of the prosecution authorities to cover it up.   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 severe pain and suffering inflicted on Mr Gurgurov by the police and of the obstacles - created by the prosecution during the investigation - to identifying those responsible; and, a violation of Article 13 ( right of an effective remedy ), on account of the impossibility for the applicant to obtain redress for his suffering.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 45,000     euros     (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sergiu Gurgurov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. He was arrested and placed in detention in October 2005 on suspicion of theft of some mobile telephones.     According to Mr Gurgurov, immediately after his arrest the police started to ill-treat him almost every day in order to force him to confess to numerous other offences, including a murder, which he had not committed. Since he refused to make any confession and denied the accusations, he was taken on 31 October 2005 to an office in the General Police Headquarters, where five police officers tortured him for several hours. In particular, his hands and legs were tied together behind his back and he was suspended from a metal bar. A gas mask was placed on his head and the air supply was periodically cut. Wires were attached to his ears under the gas mask and he was given electric shocks. He was further beaten on his head and ears, received electric shock on his hips, and a weight of 32 kilograms was placed on his back while he was lying on the floor. He lost consciousness periodically; after reviving, the torture continued. Taken to his cell, he was put by his cellmates on a bed where he was left lying for two days.   The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government.   Amnesty International, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Moldovan Ombudsman all raised in November and December 2005 serious concerns with the authorities about the situation of the applicant. In June 2006, the Prosecutor General of Moldova wrote a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association deploring the fact that Moldovan lawyers had brought to the attention of international human rights bodies certain Moldovan criminal cases and stating that his office would investigate such practices under the Moldovan Criminal Code.     After his release Mr Gurgurov was diagnosed, among other things, with a fracture of his cranial bones, cerebral contusion and injury to his spine, paralysis of his legs and post-traumatic deafness. As a result of the injuries received during his detention, he was officially recognised as having a second-degree disability amounting to a 75% loss of his working capacity.     Basing their conclusions only on part of the testimonies provided and on selected medical findings, the prosecution authorities dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment a number of times and, finally, in a decision of February 2009, concluded that he was simulating his condition.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 February 2008 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   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), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr     Gurgurov complained of being tortured by the police, which left him disabled, and of there not having been an effective investigation nor remedy for it.     Decision of the Court   Article 3     Ill-treatment   The parties agreed on the following: the period during which Mr Gurgurov had been detained; that immediately upon his release he had been hospitalised with severe injuries; and that he had not been suffering from any of those injuries before his arrest in October 2005. The Court found therefore established that the injuries had been caused to him during his detention and, given that the Government had not provided any explanation about their origin, it held that they had been the result of the ill-treatment inflicted upon him while in police custody. In view of the gravity of the violence suffered by Mr Gurgurov, as a result of which he had become disabled, the Court held that he had been tortured, in violation of Article 3.   Investigation   The Court noted that the independence of the prosecutor’s office had been doubtful throughout the investigation carried out into this case. Having expressed a clear point of view right from the beginning of the investigation, it had further attempted to put pressure on the applicant’s lawyer to dissuade her from bringing the complaints before international human rights bodies.   In addition, a series of serious shortcomings in the investigation had been observed, including significant delay in the medical attention to Mr Gurgurov and selective consideration of evidence. The Court concluded that the prosecutor's office had not made any genuine efforts to investigate the case and discover the truth. On the contrary, there had been strong indications that it had tried to cover up the facts and create obstacles to identifying and punishing those responsible.     Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of effective investigation into the case.     Article 13     The Court found that, given the inadequacy of the investigation into the applicant's criminal complaint against the police officers who had ill-treated him, a civil claim based on the same facts and allegations would not have had any prospects of success. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article   3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int 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.