CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 595 29.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Kopylov v. Russia (application no. 3933/04)     Severe TORTURE IN POLICE CUSTODY AND FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE IT EFFECTIVELY   Unanimously   Four violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Oleg Kopylov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Lipetsk (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Kopylov’s complaint that he was tortured in police custody and his related allegations were not investigated properly despite the compensation which was awarded to him by the domestic courts.   He was arrested in January 2001 - on suspicion of murdering a policeman, according to what he was told, and - on suspicion of drug-trafficking, according to what was entered in the police report. Mr Kopylov submitted that, in order to force him confess to the murder, several police officers beat him cruelly and repeatedly for a number of days until he confessed and signed a statement that he did not need a lawyer. His confession was filmed by the police after one of the officers put make-up on his face to hide the bruise marks he had sustained from the beatings. He was ill-treated severely again by the same police officers, on many occasions between 9 and 17 February and 29 March and 7 April 2001. In particular, he was repeatedly beaten, slapped, kicked, threatened with rape; a gas-mask was put over his face and he was forced to inhale cigarette smoke; his hands tied behind his back with a rope, he was hung down; electric shocks were given to various parts of his body, making him faint repeatedly; his head, eyes, ears, back, stomach and kidneys were punched and slapped; officers jumped over his chest, beat with rubber truncheons his feet, and pointed a gun at him threatening to kill him.   The murder charge against Mr Kopylov was dropped in May 2001, as, his confession retracted, there was no other evidence against him; another person was subsequently convicted for the policeman’s murder.   In 2002, psychiatrists diagnosed Mr Kopylov with post-traumatic paranoid personality disorder of a chronic nature. Between February 2001 and February 2008, Mr Kopylov was examined numerous times by doctors who concluded that he suffered from a number of serious conditions, such as post-traumatic pain disorder caused by inflammation of a spinal cord membrane, accumulation of water in the brain, post-traumatic deformation of two ribs and a shoulder blade, tics, inflammation of and damage to bone joints caused by strains or injuries, neuropathy of the feet (a disease affecting the nervous system caused by infection, or repeated or acute trauma); hearing impairment; general brain dysfunction.   Mr Kopylov’s numerous complaints, lodged between January and April 2001, were not followed up by the investigating authorities until June that year. Eventually a few police officers were questioned, but criminal proceedings were not opened until October   2001. Initially, four police officers were criminally charged with abuse of office associated with the use of violence and weapons; those charges were later brought in respect of ten other officers whom Mr Kopylov identified as having participated in his ordeals. The officers were found guilty, with a final judgment of June 2008, and received various sentences ranging from three years and three months effective imprisonment to two years and six month suspended with a two-year probation. Mr Kopylov was awarded by the domestic courts around 12,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   Mr Kopylov also complained of being further ill-treated when, on his way to a court hearing in June 2002 in another case against him (for robbery), following his and other detainees’ disobedience, escorts forced him into the courtroom by beating him with rubber truncheons as a result of which he had an epileptic fit and was taken to hospital. The prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings against the escorts finding that the force used complied with the relevant legislation; that decision was upheld by the courts.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Mr Kopylov complained that he had been severely ill-treated by the police for prolonged periods of time and that the authorities’ investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was inadequate and ineffective.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25   December   2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President, Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Ill-treatment by police between January and April 2001   The Court noted the domestic courts’ findings that as a result of ill-treatment by the Russian police, Mr Kopylov had sustained very serious and irreversible damage to his health. Given in particular the length and intensity of the ill-treatment, the Court held that it had amounted to torture.   As the domestic courts had found in Mr Kopylov’s favour, the Court examined whether he could still claim to be a victim of a Convention’s violation. The answer to that question depended on whether the investigation into his complaints had been effective and on whether the compensation awarded to him had been sufficient.   Mr Kopylov had brought numerous complaints which had been supported by medical evidence. An inquiry had been delayed for months and when it had been finally conducted, there had been an evident link between the investigating officials and those accused of ill ‑ treatment. Consequently, the investigation had not been independent. In addition, progress with prosecuting the perpetrators had been rather slow, having spread over about seven years, until the police officers who had tortured Mr Kopylov had been finally convicted. Imposing rather lenient sentences so long after the events, had fostered the police officers’ sense of impunity. Instead, the State should have shown that such acts would not be tolerated. Accordingly, the Court found that the investigation into Mr Kopylov’s complaints had not been effective, in violation of Article 3.   As regards the compensation given to him, the Court noted that it had been substantially lower than what it generally awarded to applicants in comparable Russian cases and consequently had not been a sufficient redress, in breach of Article 3.   Beating by the court escort   It had not been disputed between the parties that Mr Kopylov had been beaten with rubber truncheons in the building of the Regional Court, which had provoked his epileptic fit and an emergency taking to hospital. The Court found that the force used had been disproportionate to his alleged misconduct, namely a refusal to go to the hearing room. The Court was particularly struck that Mr Kopylov had been hit despite the authorities having been aware that his physical and mental condition had been known to be extremely frail and unstable. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3.   The Court found that the prosecutor had not provided sufficient reasons for their failure to open criminal proceedings in respect of the incident with the escorts. Further, the courts had not made any independent establishment or evaluation of what had actually happened, in breach of Article 3.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Kopylov 105,000 Euros for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This 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 . 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 or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 .