CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } 533 01.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (application nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02)   SPECIAL FORCES ill-treating prisoners during TRAINING EXERCISES   Unanimously     Four violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) Violation of Article 8 § 1 (right to correspondence) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) Violation of Article 34 (right to individual petition) and failure of the State to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 § 1(a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The judgment concerns three [2] applicants, who – at the time of the events - were serving their sentences at Zamkova correctional colony situated in Iziaslav, the Khmelnytsky Region of Ukraine. The applicants are Sergiy Davydov, Vasyl Ilchenko and Sergiy Gomenyuk; they are Ukrainian nationals who were born respectively in 1963, 1975 and 1967.   According to the applicants, on two occasions while serving their prison sentences – on 30   May 2001 and on 28 January 2002 - they were severely ill-treated by special police forces taking part in training exercises in the prison. The applicants complained that they were not warned about those exercises nor asked if they were willing to take part in them; they were beaten, struck, hit, stepped upon, forced to strip naked and humiliated during the operations, received no medical assistance for their injuries, and their subsequent related complaints were not investigated adequately. Further, they complained that their correspondence to the European Court of Human Rights was censored; that some of them received solitary confinement punishments for having written to the Court, and that they could not effectively complain about those issues. Finally, the applicants also complained about the poor quality food and the conditions in which they were detained.   Given that the Ukranian Government disputed the circumstances related to the above complaints, and denied that any of the prisoners were injured during the exercises, the Court conducted its own investigation into the circumstances of the case. In June 2007, it carried out a fact-finding mission during which three of the Court’s judges heard witnesses at the premises of the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. Evidence was also taken from three of the applicants and 13 witnesses at the Zamkova prison. The Court further examined documents submitted by the parties concerning the training exercises, including training plans and relevant regulations on prisoners’ supervision and the establishment of special rapid reaction units of the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences for dealing with extraordinary situations.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants submitted numerous complaints related in particular to their suffering during and after the special forces’ training exercises. They relied on Articles   3, 8, 13 and 34.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights between 27   June   2001 and 24 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukraine), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Failure to comply with obligations under Article 38   Having examined the Government’s conduct in assisting the Court to establish the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to discharge their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention.   Establishment of facts   While being sensitive to its subsidiary role as regards the establishment of facts, the Court nonetheless assessed the evidence it gathered given that the complaints had presented sufficiently strong allegations of ill-treatment. It concluded that the training exercises had been based on regulations which had not been publicly accessible. The applicants had been injured and humiliated during the exercises. No medical records had been drawn in that connection during the first training exercise, and reports drawn during the second one had been subsequently lost. The system in force had enabled penitentiary officials not to record injuries and not to react to medical complaints. No medical treatment had been provided to the applicants who had been instead threatened by the prison administration and asked to withdraw their related complaints to the Court. Two investigations had been conducted by the Prison Department and the prosecution authorities following complaints by the applicants lodged by their representative.   Prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3)   The Court found that, in the context of the training events of 30   May 2001 and 28   January   2002, that provision had been violated on four counts.   Firstly, the applicants had been ill-treated, and had experienced fear and humiliation during the training exercises which had been conducted without the prisoners’ consent, nor any legal justification. The Court, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, emphasised that the authorities should have trained their law enforcement officials so as to ensure that no one was ill-treated as a result of their actions. It also pointed out that, in line with the absolute prohibition of ill-treatment, the training activities of law enforcement officials should always be conducted, so as to prevent any possibility for State officials to act in breach of that prohibition.   Secondly, no effective investigation into the applicants’ complaints had been conducted. The investigations actually carried out had been plagued by numerous deficiencies; in particular, no detailed records of the investigations had ever been provided to the Court. The Court concluded that the authorities had never intended to undertake any meaningful steps to carry out an investigation that would be prompt, independent and could lead to tangible results.   Thirdly, it had not been established that the applicants had ever been examined by a medical officer in relation for their complaints; no medical treatment had been provided to them for the injuries sustained during the exercises, and no proper registration system had existed for medical complaints.   Last, but not least, the cells in which the applicants had been held, had been continuously overcrowded, which was a problem of a structural nature, which in itself was in breach of the Convention.   Effective remedy in respect of Article 3 complaints   The Court recalled its earlier case law in which it had found that no effective remedy existed in Ukraine in respect of complains concerning ill-treatment, lack of effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment and failure to provide medical assistance and conditions of detention. It concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Right to correspondence (Article 8)   The Court found that the applicants’ letters had been illegally checked and censored, in violation of Article 8 § 1.   Right to individual petition (Article 34)   The Court held that applicants’ right under this Article had been violated in view of the pressure exercised on them by the authorities to withdraw their applications to the Court.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Ukraine had to pay to the first and second applicants separately 20,000   euros (EUR), and to the third applicant EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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 Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   [2] The remaining 10 applicants and/or their successors failed to maintain their applications following which the Court did not examine them.