CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     352   18.5.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VELIKOVA v. BULGARIA   In a judgment [1] delivered at Strasbourg on 18 May 2000 in the case of Velikova v. Bulgaria, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the death of the applicant’s partner and father of three of her children; that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation; that there had been a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy); and that there had been no violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant, unanimously, 100,000   French francs for non-pecuniary damage and 8,000 Bulgarian levs (BGL) for pecuniary damage. It also awarded, unanimously, 10,000 (BGL) for costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Anya Velikova, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1952 and lives in Pleven, Bulgaria.   On 25 September 1994 Slavcho Tsonchev, the man with whom she had lived for many years,   died in police custody some 12 hours after his arrest on suspicion of cattle theft. Mr Tsonchev, a Romany, was 49 years old. The investigation into the events has been dormant since December   1994 despite Ms Velikova’s numerous complaints to the authorities.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12   February   1998. On 1 November 1998 the case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights. It was declared admissible on 18 May 1999 and a hearing was held on 20   January 2000.       Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Georg Ress (German), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), John Hedigan (Irish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges ,   and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant claimed Mr Tsonchev had died as a result of injuries intentionally inflicted by the police, that he had not received adequate medical treatment while in police custody and that there had not been a meaningful investigation into the circumstances of his death, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention.   She complained, invoking Articles 6 and 13, that the length of the investigation was excessive and that she had no effective remedy concerning the inactivity of the prosecution. She also complained that there had been discrimination contrary to Article 14 on the basis of Mr Tsonchev’s Romany (Gypsy) ethnic origin.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objections   The applicant authorised her lawyer to represent her by virtue of a written power of attorney bearing her signature, but had on another occasion put a thumb print under an official document, stating that she was illiterate. On the basis of all the evidence, including a meeting of the President of the Chamber with the applicant in the presence of the Government representative, the Court found that the application had been validly submitted on behalf of the applicant.   The Government also reiterated a number of other preliminary objections which they had previously raised. For the most part these had already been examined and dismissed by the Court in its admissibility decision of 18 May 1999. In any event the objections were unfounded.   Conclusion: preliminary objections dismissed.     Article 2 of the Convention   (i) The alleged killing of Mr Tsonchev   Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is later found dead, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the events leading to his death.   The cause of Mr Tsonchev’s death was the acute loss of blood resulting from the large and deep haematomas in the upper limbs and the left buttock. The Government’s suggestions that Mr Tsonchev might have received these injuries prior to his arrest or resulting from a fall to the ground were implausible. It was undisputed that at the moment of his arrest he was drinking in company and that he could walk and that, at the time of the arrest and over the next two hours, he did not complain of any ailment, and that no-one who had been in contact with him, including the police officers involved, reported any visible sign of such grave injuries as were found later by the autopsy.   Furthermore, according to a prosecutor’s decision of 19   March 1996, the fatal injuries had been the result of “deliberate beating”. Indeed, the acute loss of blood was the result of symmetrical haematomas in the upper limbs, measuring 40 by 18 centimetres each, and a haematoma on the left buttock, which was 8 to 10 centimetres long and 1.5 to 2 centimetres wide. The forensic expert did not mention falling on the ground as a possible cause of these injuries. There is sufficient evidence on which it may be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tsonchev died as a result of injuries inflicted while he was in the hands of the police. Furthermore, he was not properly examined by a medical doctor when he was in custody suffering from grave injuries.   Conclusion: violation of Article 2.   (ii) The alleged lack of an effective investigation.   Article 2 of the Convention requires that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, an investigation which must be thorough, impartial and careful.   The applicant submitted that the deficiencies of the investigation were so grave and numerous that the only possible explanation could be that the investigator and the prosecutor endeavoured to cover up the crime committed against Mr Tsonchev.   Unexplained failure to undertake indispensable and obvious investigative steps is to be treated with particular vigilance. In such a case, where there is no plausible explanation by the respondent Government as to why such an investigation did not take place, the State is responsible for a particularly serious violation of its obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life.   There were obvious means of obtaining evidence about the timing of Mr Tsonchev’s injuries and further important evidence about the circumstances surrounding his arrest, his state of health, and, consequently, about the perpetrators of the grave crime committed against him. However, the investigator did not collect such evidence, inactivity which was sanctioned by the supervising prosecutor. Furthermore, the investigation remained dormant, nothing having been done since December 1994 to uncover the truth about the killing of Mr   Tsonchev. No plausible explanation for the authorities’ failure to collect key evidence was ever provided by the respondent Government.   Conclusion: violation of Article 2.   Article 13 of the Convention   The applicant’s complaint, raised under Article 6, of the excessive length of the investigation fell to be examined under Article 13. The authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr Tsonchev undermined the effectiveness of any other remedy which might have existed.   Conclusion: violation of   Article 13.   Article 14 of the Convention   The applicant’s complaint is grounded on a number of serious arguments. However, the standard of proof required under the Convention is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. The material before it did not enable the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Mr   Tsonchev’s killing and the lack of a meaningful investigation into it were motivated by racial prejudice, as claimed by the applicant   Conclusion: no violation of Article 14.   Article 41 of the Convention   The applicant must have suffered gravely as a result of the serious violations involving the death of her partner and father of three of her children. The applicant’s claim for non ‑ pecuniary damages is not excessive and is awarded in full.   The applicant must have suffered pecuniary damage in the form of loss of income. In the absence of documentary proof of Mr Tsonchev’s income, which was allegedly from petty trade of services for goods or food, the Court was obliged to decide on an equitable basis.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.   [2] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.