CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 mai 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 108 May 2008 Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia - 7178/03 Judgment 15.5.2008 [Section I] Article 3 Torture Ill-treatment and unjustified use of truncheons against detainees and lack of effective investigation: violation   Facts : In 2001, while serving a prison sentence at a correctional colony, the seven applicants were ill-treated and beaten with truncheons by the Varyag squad, a special unit created to maintain order in detention facilities. The squad was allegedly called into the correctional colony to intimidate detainees who were being encouraged to engage in subversive activities by the leader of a criminal gang. The squad had instructions to maintain order by carrying out body searches of the detainees and of all quarters within the colony. The whole squad, except for its commander, wore balaclava helmets and camouflage uniforms with no indication of their rank and was armed with rubber truncheons. The criminal proceedings were discontinued in respect of most of the complaints of ill-treatment on the ground that the investigation had not obtained “objective information” to confirm the allegations. The charges brought against the commander and his subordinates for excess of power were also discontinued due to lack of evidence. Law Article 3 –(a) Substantive aspect : Having regard to the indiscriminate nature of the squad’s operations, which targeted the entire colony rather than specific detainees, and the Government’s acceptance of the applicants’ factual submissions, the Court found it established to the requisite standard that the applicants had been subjected to the ill-treatment of which they had complained. The use of truncheons had no basis in law. The Penitentiary Institutions Act permitted rubber truncheons to be used in certain situations, for instance to prevent assaults, repress mass disorder and apprehend prisoners who persistently disobeyed or resisted officers. Nevertheless, there was no evidence that the applicants had attacked officers or fellow detainees. The beatings had been individual rather than collective in nature. Even though some applicants had allegedly disobeyed or resisted the officers’ orders, no attempt had been made to arrest them. Even though the officers may have needed to resort to physical force in certain cases, their actions had been grossly disproportionate to the applicants’ alleged transgressions and were manifestly inconsistent with the goals they sought to achieve. It was obvious that hitting a detainee with a truncheon was not conducive to the desired result of facilitating the search. In such a situation, a truncheon blow was merely a form of reprisal or corporal punishment. Such a disproportionate response was all the more striking in case of the applicants who had simply refused to state their name or change clothes. The squad had therefore resorted to deliberate and gratuitous violence in order to arouse feelings of fear and humiliation which would break the applicants’ physical or moral resistance, and to debase the applicants and drive them into submission. The truncheon blows must have caused intense mental and physical suffering amounting to torture. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b) Procedural aspect : Criminal proceedings had not been brought until one-and-a-half months after the event. However, no evidence had been produced to show that the applicants had been medically examined following the incident, as the records submitted referred only to subsequent examinations. Indeed, the lack of any “objective” evidence, such as medical records, had been given as a reason for discontinuing the proceedings in respect of most of the complaints. The reports on the use of truncheons had not specified which officers had used them. By allowing the squad to cover their faces and not to wear any distinctive signs on their uniforms, the authorities had knowingly made it impossible for them to be identified by their victims. That ground had even been given as the main reason for discontinuing the criminal proceedings. Similarly, the courts had hindered any meaningful attempt to bring those responsible to account. Further, while the district court had acquitted the commander because he had exercised appropriate control over the lawfulness of the actions of his subordinates, the regional court had exonerated him on the ground that he was not able, or obliged, to control his officers in his absence. The Court accordingly noted the glaring contradictions between the findings of the domestic courts. Moreover, the applicants’ right to participate effectively in the investigation had not been secured. The investigator had not heard evidence from the applicants or other victims in person and had not even considered mentioning their version of events in his decisions. There was no evidence that copies of the prosecutor’s decisions had been duly served on the applicants. The investigation carried out into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had therefore not been thorough, adequate or efficient. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – While Russian civil courts in theory had the capacity to make an independent assessment of a case, in practice the weight attached to a preceding criminal inquiry was so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary would have been discarded and such a remedy would have been only theoretical and illusory. The criminal proceedings had been discontinued and, consequently, any other remedy, including a claim for damages, had limited chances of success. The applicants therefore had not had an effective remedy under domestic law to claim compensation for the ill-treatment they had suffered. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 38 § 1 (a) – Despite repeated requests, the Government had refused to submit a copy of a report by the head of department for supervision of compliance with laws in penitentiary institutions. The evidence contained in that report had been crucial to the establishment of the facts in the case. The reasons given by the Government for their refusal had been inadequate. Accordingly, the Government had failed to meet their obligations under Article 38 §   1   (a). Conclusion : failure to comply (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes