CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2007

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 100 August-September 2007 Kucheruk v. Ukraine - 2570/04 Judgment 6.9.2007 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations Unjustified use of truncheons, placement in solitary confinement, handcuffing and lack of adequate medical care of a detainee suffering from schizophrenia: violation Lack of adequate investigation into the use of truncheons by prison guards to a detainee suffering from schizophrenia: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Continued detention in hospital after a compulsory psychiatric treatment order was lifted: violation   Facts : In April 2002 the applicant was charged with hooliganism and theft. At the city hospital he was diagnosed with schizophrenia but certified fit for detention on remand. He was admitted to a psychiatric ward of the regional pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”). According to a report drawn up in a psychiatric hospital in May 2002, he was suffering from an acute personality disorder which required compulsory in-patient psychiatric treatment. However, he was transferred back to an ordinary cell in the SIZO where he showed signs of disturbed behaviour and was prone to aggressive violent outbursts. In July 2002 the district court committed him for compulsory psychiatric treatment. While detained in the SIZO medical wing, the applicant became particularly agitated. The prison guards beat him with truncheons and handcuffed him. Two prison officers and a doctor reported that his shoulders and buttocks showed signs of injuries inflicted by truncheons. Following this incident, he spent nine days in solitary confinement, where he would bang his head against the wall and try to free himself from his handcuffs. The applicant was then transferred back to the psychiatric hospital for compulsory treatment which continued until July 2003. However, he was released from hospital only a month later. The proceedings against him were discontinued in view of his lack of criminal responsibility. His mother filed a criminal complaint against the prison guards in respect of the ill-treatment of her son. More than a month after the incident, he was examined by medical experts. Deep cuts around his wrists and general bruising from blunt instruments were observed but the report remained inconclusive about when and how the injuries had occurred. The governor of the SIZO decided not to bring criminal proceedings. This decision was quashed. In October 2004 the case was taken over by the regional prosecutor’s office which also ultimately decided not to bring charges against the prison guards. The applicant’s mother challenged that decision and the proceedings are still pending. Law : Article 3 – Excessive use of force : In view of the applicant’s earlier agitated behaviour, it could not be said that the prison authorities had been called upon to respond to an unexpected development. The three guards involved had outnumbered the applicant. Furthermore, at no stage of the proceedings had any witnesses stated that the applicant had attempted to attack, or that his behaviour had in any way endangered, the guards or his fellow inmates. The use of truncheons, which had resulted in injuries, had therefore been unjustified and amounted to inhuman treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Handcuffing : The handcuffing of the mentally ill applicant for a period of seven days, without any psychiatric justification or medical treatment for the injuries he had sustained during his forced restraint and/or self-inflicted during his confinement in the disciplinary cell had to be regarded as constituting inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Lack of medical care : The forensic experts’ recommendation that the applicant be given treatment in a specialised hospital had not been immediately complied with. Indeed, he had been transferred back to an ordinary cell in the SIZO, where he was only examined once by a psychiatrist and ended up assaulting a fellow inmate, a month after his transfer. He had not been provided with appropriate medical treatment while in disciplinary detention. That could not be considered to be adequate and reasonable medical attention in the light of the applicant’s serious mental condition. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Lack of an adequate investigation : The initial inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had not satisfied the minimum requirement of independence since the investigating body – the SIZO governor –   was a representative of the authority involved. The investigation had been limited to establishing whether the guards had acted in accordance with the relevant regulations and was based only on statements from the guards concerned and the inmates who were present. The forensic examination of the applicant’s injuries had not been carried out until 37 days after the use of force and was inconclusive. Moreover, that inquiry had done little to satisfy the need for public scrutiny, as the applicant’s mother was not formally informed of the refusal to bring criminal proceedings until six months later and his lawyer was not given access to the case-file until a year after the decision. An independent investigation into the applicant’s grievances had commenced more than two years and two months after the incident, when the case was taken over by the regional prosecutor’s office. This investigation had not remedied the failings of the initial stages of the proceedings. In particular, there was no indication that the inmates, who had witnessed the incident, had ever been re-interviewed or that any attempts had been made to compensate for the lack of medical information on the applicant’s injuries. These failings, which the domestic courts highlighted on three separate occasions when quashing the authorities’ decisions not to bring criminal proceedings, coupled with the lack of independence, promptness or public scrutiny, provided a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the investigation, which was still pending, had failed to meet the minimum standards of effectiveness. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1 – Period from 7 to 22 July 2003 : The court order of 7 July 2003 ending the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment had only become final after the expiry of the deadline for appealing. The applicant’s detention during that period was therefore covered by the previous order to commit him for such treatment. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Period from 22 July to 6   August 2003 : It did not appear that the court, when ordering the applicant’s fresh psychiatric examination, had intended him to be detained. Nor could the court’s decision of 7   July 2003, which ended the compulsory treatment order and recommended the resumption of criminal proceedings against the applicant, be regarded as a legal basis for his continued detention after 22 July 2003. The administrative formalities relied upon by the Government could not justify a delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant. Nor could the applicant’s continued detention in hospital be regarded as a first step in the execution of the order for his release. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 20,000 for 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