CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   163 1.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RIVAS v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Rivas v. France (application no. 59584/00). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Giovanni Rivas, is a French national who was born in 1979 and lives in Nouméa.   On 14 January 1997 he was arrested in the context of an investigation into a burglary. At the time he was 17 years old and 1.66 meters tall, weighed 50 kilos and was already known to the police in connection with minor offences such as theft.   He was initially questioned by a police inspector, but as he denied the offence, Chief Inspector H. decided to take him into his office in order to “reason” with him. Shortly afterwards, the applicant suffered a blow in the genital area, which resulted in a ruptured testicle requiring emergency surgery.   The parties disagreed as to the circumstances in which the applicant had received the blow. The applicant asserted that the police officer had hit him in the back so as to push him inside his office, and had then given him a violent kick in the testicles. Chief Inspector H. maintained, however, that he had been compelled to hit the applicant in self-defence because the applicant, who had been trying to escape from the office, had threatened him with his fist.   The applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against the police officer in question on behalf of her son, who was below the age of majority. An investigation was begun, during which evidence was taken from various witnesses. Their statements indicated that Chief Inspector H. had repeatedly hit them during questioning in order to obtain confessions from them and that on occasion he had even forced suspects to hit one another.   In a judgment of 9 October 1998 the Nouméa Criminal Court found the police officer guilty of assault occasioning total unfitness for work for less than eight days, with the additional factor that the offence had been committed by a person exercising public authority in the performance of his duties, and fined him. On 2 March 1999 that judgment was overturned by the Nouméa Court of Appeal, which acquitted the police officer on the ground that he had acted in self-defence. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation on 1 February 2000.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 24 July 2000 and declared admissible on 6 March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the treatment to which he had been subjected while in police custody.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   It was not disputed that the applicant’s injury had been inflicted during his time in police custody, while he had been entirely under the supervision of police officers. The urgent nature of the hospital treatment he had required and the medical certificates that had subsequently been issued indicated the force of the blow he had received.   The Court noted that the applicant, a minor at the material time, had been smaller in build than the police officer and had still had the dimensions of an adolescent. Furthermore, although he was known to the police, he had not had any record of violence. The Court further noted that both the investigating judge dealing with the case and the Criminal Court had considered that the police officer had not acted in self-defence, and that, after a detailed examination of his conduct, the Criminal Court had found him guilty of assault. The Court of Appeal had overturned that judgment, finding the police officer’s assertions “plausible”. The officer was, however, known for violent conduct, and although no action had been taken on previous complaints against him, the statements of witnesses questioned in the present case and the consistent nature of the allegations about his use of violence pointed to an attitude that not be described as merely occasional. In that context, the Court took note of the police officer’s consistent statements about his intention to “reason” with the applicant after “shutting himself” in his office with him.   In such circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant’s alleged attempt to escape could not absolve the State of its responsibility in the present case. It was not satisfied that the blow had been necessary to ward off the threat posed by the applicant; in any event, the police officer could have used other methods to make him sit down again. The Court accordingly considered that the French Government had not shown that the use of force against the applicant had been necessary.   It therefore found that the acts complained of had been such as to cause the applicant both physical and mental pain or suffering and, in view of his age, to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance. Having regard to those factors, the Court considered that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had been inhuman and degrading.     ***   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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [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.