CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 560 13.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]     Carabulea v. Romania (application no. 45661/99)     ROMA ROBBERY SUSPECT WAS TORTURED IN POLICE CUSTODY AND, REFUSED CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY, DIED IN INTENSIVE CARE   Unanimously   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and investigation) Violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and lack of an effective investigation) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Viorel Carabulea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerned Mr Carabulea’s allegation that his 27-year-old brother, Gabriel, died after being tortured in police custody, and not, as alleged by the Romanian Government, as a result of a blood clot from a pre ‑ existing disease or anomaly with his venous system.   Gabriel Carabulea was arrested on 13 April 1996 and taken to a police station in Bucharest for questioning about a robbery. He was not examined by a doctor but, according to the Government, was in good health when placed in the police lock-up. His wife, who visited him the same day, corroborated that claim and stated that he did not complain of any ill ‑ treatment. On 15 April, however, she noticed that he had difficulty walking. On 16   April, he was found to be in a generally altered state of health by the medical assistant at the police dispensary and, as a result, was taken to the Ministry of the Interior Hospital. The medical records there noted that he was in a state of shock, vomiting blood and in great pain upon arrival. He was then admitted later on in the afternoon to Jilava Penitentiary Hospital and, from there, was transferred on 17 April to intensive care in Fundeni Hospital. Interrogated on his arrival, he remained under constant police supervision at that hospital until his death on 3   May 1996.   An autopsy report issued on 4 May 1996 concluded that the cause of death was acute cardio-respiratory insufficiency and bronchopneumonia. All of the autopsies and expert reports, submitted by both parties, further noted a bruise at the front of Gabriel’s right hip “resulting from violence” and internal bleeding on the liver sustained by “blunt force trauma”.   The applicant alleges that, after his brother’s admission to Fundeni hospital, the authorities refused all visits on the ground that he was under arrest. Nor were doctors forthcoming about his state of health. The applicant, family and a friend did manage however to gain access to Gabriel on one occasion by negotiating with a police officer on guard: Gabriel told his wife and a friend that, when refusing to admit to the robbery, he had been hung by handcuffs from a locker and beaten and, rolled up in a wet carpet, had also been jumped on and beaten with sticks. On another occasion, the applicant and friend, waiting outside the hospital room, heard Gabriel calling out “They’ve killed me!”.   Gabriel’s wife filed a complaint in May 1996 requesting that a murder investigation be opened into her husband’s death. The investigation by the military prosecuting authorities, discontinued in August 1996 and reopened in February 1997, was ultimately dropped in March 1998 with a decision not to press charges against the accused police officers on the ground that Gabriel had died from cardiopathy with pre-existent visceral pathology. During those inquiries, the authorities took statements from the police officers involved in Gabriel’s interrogation and transfer to hospital; Gabriel’s wife, family and friends were not interviewed. The prosecutor of the reopened investigation ordered a new forensic examination in February 1998, requesting in particular an opinion on a colour photograph taken by the family before their relative’s burial and which showed bruising to his genital area. The same pathologist who had done the autopsy of May 1996 carried out that examination: he reiterated the conclusions of his autopsy and expressed the opinion that the bruising on the photograph had occurred post mortem .     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant alleged that his brother had died as a result of ill-treatment by the police. He also complained about the inadequacy of the medical care provided by the police to his brother following his arrest as well as of the ensuing investigation into his death. He further complained that his brother, in great pain and in need of care and support during his hospitalisation from 16 April to 3 May 1996, had been deprived of all contact with his family while police officers had been posted permanently in his ward. He relied on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13   (right to an effective remedy). Lastly, he alleged that his brother’s ill-treatment and death, as well as the authorities’ refusal to launch a murder investigation into the incident, had been due to his Roma origin, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2   September   1998 and declared admissible on 21 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 2   Death of Gabriel Carabulea First, the Court found it unacceptable that the applicant’s brother had not had a medical examination, one of the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment, on being arrested on 13 April 1996. He had only been taken to see a doctor on 16 April and, despite having been found to be critically ill, had only finally been transferred into intensive care on 17   April. Furthermore, the Government had provided no plausible explanation for the need to interrogate him in such circumstances.   Nor indeed had the Government provided any convincing explanation for Gabriel’s critical state on arrival at hospital on 16 April 1996 or for the injuries on his body. No explanation at all had been provided either for the bruising on his hip or the liver injury, which according to the Government’s very own expert reports, had more than likely been the cause of death. There was no document to prove either that the bruising around the genitalia had occurred post mortem . The Government had even less convincingly established that he had died as a result of a pre-existing disease; on the contrary, it had accepted that he had died as a result of blunt force trauma.   Moreover, the Court noted with grave concern that all of the medical examinations and consultations had been carried out in the presence of the police and that Gabriel’s family had not been allowed any meaningful contact with him or with his doctors.   The Court concluded that the authorities had not only failed to provide timely medical care to the applicant’s brother but also any satisfactory explanation for the death of a perfectly healthy 27-year old man placed in police custody. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2.   Inadequacy of the investigation into his death The Court noted that the post mortem examinations had significant failings: no forensic photographs of the body or X-ray of the thorax had been taken. The descriptions in the reports had in general been incomplete, notably as concerned the blood clot and the pathological examination of the injuries and marks on the body, which had thus hindered any accurate analysis of their date or origin. The prosecutors in charge had limited both their investigations to collecting written statements from the various police officers involved. The new prosecutor in charge as from February 1997 had delayed ordering a new forensic examination for a year and, entirely basing his conclusions on its findings, had given a strikingly terse decision in March 1998. The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding Gabriel   Carabulea’s death, in further violation of Article 2.   Article 3 There was no doubt that the ill-treatment to which the applicant’s brother had been subjected, apparently inflicted intentionally so as to obtain a confession, had been particularly cruel and severe since it had resulted in his death. The authorities’ refusal to allow the family members to be with their relative prior to his death as well as to provide them with any information concerning his condition had also been excessively unfair and cruel. The Court therefore concluded that, taken as a whole, the treatment to which Gabriel   Carabulea had been subjected had amounted to torture, in violation of Article   3. Referring to its findings under Article 2 as to the alleged inadequacy of the investigation, it found, on the same grounds, that there had been a further violation of Article 3.   Article 13 Referring to other similar cases against Romania in which the Court had found that any remedies available had been theoretical and illusory, it held that the applicant had also been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of his brother, including any claim for compensation, in violation of Article 13.   Articles 6 and 14 Given its findings above, the Court found that it was not necessary to determine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 (unanimously) or Article 14 (by four votes to three) in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,030   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. A further EUR 35,000 was awarded to Gabriel Carabulea’s daughter to be held in trust for her until she reaches the age of majority. EUR 15,000 was awarded for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Emma Hellyer (telephone : +33 3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) 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.