CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } 621 02.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Bekirski v. Bulgaria (application no. 71420/01) Vlaevi v. Bulgaria (application nos. 272/02 and 890/05)     TWO DEATHS AS A RESULT OF TORTURE AND INADEQUATE PLANNING OF a POLICE OPERATION   Unanimously   Four violations of Article 2 (right to life) Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) Violation of Article 38 (obligation to cooperate with the Court) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants in both cases are the relatives of two young men, Hristo Bekirski and Marin Vlaev, born respectively in 1972 and 1967. They were both Bulgarian nationals, who died in September 1996 and August 1998 respectively, at the hands of the police.   The cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that their relatives were killed by the police, Hristo Bekirski as a result of torture in detention and Marin Vlaev following shots fired by the police at his taxi during an operation to resolve a kidnapping.   As regards the first case, Hristo Bekirski was detained in May 1996 on charges of premeditated murder. Having allegedly attempted to escape on 30 August 1996, he was subdued and handcuffed by a few duty officers after a fight in which he stabbed two of them in the eyes. In the evening of the same day a medical report was issued recording numerous bruises all over Hristo Bekirski’s face and body; he was not treated immediately. According to Hristo Bekirski’s relatives, including his father who was detained at the same time in the same establishment and claimed to have personally heard his screams, Hristo Bekirski was tortured continuously between 30 August and 6 September. Finally taken to hospital on 6   September 1996, he died on the morning of 8 September 1996 despite being treated by specialist doctors. An autopsy was carried out on the following day; it established that numerous injuries caused by a solid blunt object were the cause of his death. An investigation was opened on the day he died and was supervised by the authority in charge of the facility in which he had been detained. It was discontinued several times as the authorities found that the duty officers had acted in self defence and the injuries from which Hristo Bekirski died had been inflicted during the fight of 30 August when he had attacked them while trying to escape. In September 1997, a prosecutor from the military prosecution service found evidence that Hristo Bekirski had been systematically beaten after the events of 30 August and ordered that the investigation be continued. Four more medical reports were issued subsequently. The reports commissioned by the authorities established that all of Hristo Bekirski’s injuries may have occurred only during the fight and attempted escape on 30 August. The report commissioned by his relatives, and drawn up by a doctor from the Sofia Academy of Medicine, found it more likely that new injuries had been sustained after the fight on 30 August; it also noted that the injuries had been inflicted by various objects and that Hristo Bekirski’s state of health before his death had warranted immediate medical attention which he had not received.   As regards the second case, Marin Vlaev was a taxi-driver carrying out night shifts when, at about 4 o’clock in the morning of 27 August 1998, he happened to pass next to a group of police officers standing close to a road leading towards Odartsi village. The officers were either wearing police uniforms or had vests with visible “police” signs on the back. The officers were carrying out an operation to free a hostage being held at ransom. When Marin Vlaev drove by, they had just stopped the suspected kidnapper who had come to collect the ransom and who was lying wounded on the side of the road. While initially Marin Vlaev slowed down significantly as if to stop his car, he accelerated suddenly after a policeman opened his car door and showed his identity card. Several police officers fired after Marin Vlaev’s escaping car; two bullets hit him in the back and neck and he died on the spot. An investigation was opened a week later and a number of investigative acts were carried out. In June 2004, the investigation was discontinued as the prosecutor held that the police had reasonably concluded that Marin Vlaev could have been an accomplice of the kidnapper given his strange behaviour and the fact that the kidnapper had indicated that the hostage would be freed as soon as the money was paid. The prosecutor also concluded that the police had attempted, as far as possible, not to endanger Marin Vlaev’s or anyone else’s life, having fired in a non-residential place and having aimed at the tires of his car.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 and 3, the applicants complained that their relatives had been killed by the police, that their deaths had not been properly investigated, and (in the Bekirski case) that Hristo Bekirski had been ill-treated by the police and denied timely and adequate medical treatment.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 March 2001, and on 17 December 2004 and 23 December 2005.   Judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   In both cases: Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (The Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Pavlina Panova (Bulgaria), ad hoc judge, Plus, in Bekirski v Bulgaria: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), judges , and in Vlaevi v Bulgaria: Rait Maruste (Estonia) Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monaco) and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Bekirski v Bulgaria case:   Cooperation with the Court   The Court noted that, despite its specific request, the Bulgarian authorities had failed to provide the complete investigation file into Hristo Bekirski’s death. In view of the ensuing difficulties for the Court to establish the facts and of the importance of the State to cooperate with it, the Court found that the Bulgarian Government had failed to provide all necessary facilities for the examination of the case, in violation of Article 38.   Prohibition of ill-treatment   As regards the fight of 30 August, the Court found that the duty officers had used reasonable force to subdue Hristo Bekirski, given that they had feared for their safety having been attacked with what appeared to be a lethal weapon, and that – if Hristo Bekirski had escaped – they had thought him to be a danger to society. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 3 on that account.   As regards the period between 30 August and 6 September the Court noted that numerous witnesses had testified to having heard screams and cries during those days and nights. In addition, a prosecutor from the military prosecution’s office had found evidence that Hristo Bekirski had been systematically beaten on more than one occasion after his attempted escape. Further, the medical reports had recorded injuries not present at the time after the 30 August fight. Considering the above, and the Government’s lack of assistance in providing all the information at its disposal, the Court concluded that, between 30   August   and 6 September, Hristo Bekirski, systematically beaten, had been kept in an almost permanent state of physical pain and anxiety. Consequently, he had been tortured in detention, in violation of Article 3.   As regards the medical care provided to Hristo Bekirski, the Court noted that he had not been treated after the numerous injuries he first sustained on 30 August. Neither had he been taken to a specialised medical facility for a check-up. In view of Hristo Bekirski’s medical state and of the clearly evident need to have treated him with more than pain killers, the Court found that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their obligation to provide adequate and timely medical care to Hristo Bekirski, in violation of Article 3.   Right to life:   The Court found that the torture, coupled with the lack of adequate medical care and the Government’s reluctance to help it with its examination of the case, had led to Hristo Bekirski’s death, in violation of Article 2.   As regards the investigation carried out into Hristo Bekirski’s death, the Court found that while it had been started promptly and a number of investigative steps had been taken, its impartiality could reasonably be called into question given that the investigating authority was the one supervising the establishment in which Hristo Bekirski had been detained and tortured. The Court was unable to establish the entire scope of the investigative acts carried out given the Government’s unwillingness to cooperate. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 2 for failure to carry out an effective investigation into Hristo Bekirski’s death.   Vlaevi v. Bulgaria case:   Right to life   The Court found that Marin Vlaev’s behaviour, having tried to escape despite an order to stop made by clearly identifiable police officers, had contributed to the police officers’ suspicion that he could have been linked to the kidnapper. Given the urgent need for the police to react as the life of the hostage had still been in danger at that moment, the Court found that it had been absolutely necessary for the officers to use their fire-arms to stop the car and the driver. There had therefore been no violation of Article 2 as regards the use of fire-arms.   As regards the preparation and control of the police operation, however, the Court noted that a plan had been drawn, fire-arms and protective equipment had been envisaged and the officers had received instructions either earlier in the day or immediately before the intervention. The officers had been instructed to use all means to apprehend the kidnappers, including using their fire-arms. While a degree of improvisation is inevitable in such police operations, the somewhat chaotic reaction of the officers upon the arrival of the taxi-driver suggested that they had not been prepared to see a second person at the scene, and to envisage other possible technical means for stopping the car or pursuing it. Consequently, the police operation in which Marin Vlaev had died, had not been planned and controlled in a way to minimise as much as possible all risk to life, in violation of Article   2.   As regards the investigation carried out into Marin Vlaev’s death, the Court noted that the Bulgarian authorities had not remained passive and had shown a willingness to establish if the force used by the police officers had been in line with domestic legislation. However, the Bulgarian legislation at the time, as applied by competent domestic authorites’ in the present case, had not required the use of force to be absolutely necessary, contrary to what was prescribed by the Convention. In addition, significant delays had occurred in respect of many of the investigative steps carried out. Those delays as well as the overall duration of the preliminary investigation, amounting to almost six years, had been excessive. Accordingly, the investigation into Marin Vlaev’s death had not been effective, in violation of Article 2.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   Under Article 41, the Court held that Bulgaria had to pay to Hristo Bekirski’s relatives jointly EUR 5,000 for pecuniary damage, 75,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 11,100 for costs and expenses, and to Marin Vlaev’s parents jointly EUR 30,000 and to Marin Vlaev’s wife separately another EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and to Marin Vlaev’s parents jointly EUR 3,000 and to Marin Vlaev’s wife separately another EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment Bekirski v. Bulgaria is only available in English and Vlaevi v. Bulgaria only in French. 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 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 .