CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .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 } .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 } 666 16.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia (application no. 75472/01)     18-year old ill-treated IN POLICE CUSTODY AND his related complaints not INVESTIGATEd EFFECTIVELY   Unanimously   Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) Violation of 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 applicant, Tigran Ayrapetyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow.   The case concerned Mr Ayrapetyan’s complaint that, aged 18, he was ill-treated in police custody and that his related allegations were not investigated properly.   Seen by the police while receiving money from another student in a school yard, he was arrested on 10 February 2001 on suspicion of extortion. According to Mr Ayrapetyan, he was taken to a police cell where he was beaten repeatedly in order to confess. Kicked in the chest and face, and on the verge of losing consciousness, he signed all papers he was asked to. On the same evening, he was taken to a casualty department in a polyclinic where a doctor found he had a broken jaw and recommended his urgent in-patient examination by a surgeon. Mr Ayrapetyan was then escorted back to a police cell where his fingerprints were taken. He was released at about 2 a.m. on 11 February.   On the day of his release, he was taken to a city hospital where he underwent surgery of his dislocated and broken jaw.   On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted against him for extortion; they were discontinued in December 2001 on the basis of an amnesty act passed by the State   Duma in November that year.   Mr Ayrapetyan’s mother complained to various authorities, including the police and prosecution, about her son’s ill-treatment. As a result, criminal proceedings were started in May 2001 and a forensic medical examination was carried out. It was discovered in June   2001 that the medical file of Mr Ayrapetian established after his visit to the polyclinic was lost. Despite his specific requests, Mr Ayrapetyan received only limited information about the progress of the investigation and was not allowed access to the file. The criminal proceedings were terminated in October 2001 for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. They were reopened in June 2002, as a result of which a police officer was charged with abuse of office. The proceedings were ultimately terminated with an acquittal for the officer as the courts found the evidence too confusing and contradictory to enable them to conclude with certainty that the officer was guilty.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Mr Ayrapetyan complained that he had been ill-treated by the police on 10 February 2001 and that the authorities had failed to carry out a proper investigation in that connection.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19   September   2001.   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   Article 3   Ill-treatment   The Court noted that it was undisputed that a doctor had concluded on the evening of 10   February 2001 that Mr Ayrapetyan had a fractured jaw and needed in-patient treatment. The Court further noted that no satisfactory and convincing explanation about the origin of his injuries had been provided by the Russian Government, and therefore accepted the description of events as submitted by Mr Ayrapetyan.   Having regard to the fact that he had been only 18 years old when severely beaten in detention, which had caused him significant physical and mental suffering, the Court concluded that Mr Ayrapetyan had been tortured by the police, in violation of Article 3.   Investigation   The Court noted that the investigation had been started as late as three months after the mother of Mr Ayrapetyan brought the complaints. Consequently the authorities had failed to react sufficiently promptly, which had had a serious negative impact on the quality and effectiveness of the investigation. Further, the Court deplored the loss by the investigative authorities of the original medical file of Mr Ayrapetyan from the polyclinic. Given the late start of the investigation, the medical file had been a crucial piece of evidence and its loss had seriously compromised the possibility of properly investigating the cause of the injuries. Finally, Mr Ayrapetyan had had limited access to information about the progress of the investigation and had not been able to participate in the proceedings. The Court concluded that the investigative authorities had acted negligently and not investigated properly, in violation of Article 3.   Article 38   The Court held that the Russian Government fell short of their obligations to cooperate with the Court as it did not submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the events on 10 February 2001.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Ayrapetyan 35,000   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 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 .