CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .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   253 19.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TOTEVA v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Toteva v. Bulgaria (application no. 42027/98).   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 in that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers and that the investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant’s daughter 3,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Girgina Dimova Toteva, was a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1928 and lived in Sevlievo (Bulgaria). She died on 30 August 2003. Her daughter, Svetla Todorova Martinova, was allowed to pursue the application on her behalf.   Mrs Toteva, who was 67 at the time, was arrested in April 1995 following a neighbour’s complaint that she had beaten her with a stick. After being confronted with her accuser at the police station an argument broke out and the applicant was taken into a detention room in disputed circumstances. The police officers claim that she was restrained after she had insulted one of them, slapped him and kicked him in the ankle. Mrs Toteva alleged that she had been beaten to extract a confession. She had been hit about the head and kicked. She had bumped her head against the edge of a table while falling to the floor and she had lost consciousness.   When subsequently examined at the hospital, she was found to have traumas on her head and back. A neurologist noted that she had “ [c]ontusio captitis and [c]ommotio cerebri ”. The applicant was later convicted of having caused light bodily injury to an official and insulting him. She was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years. She appealed unsuccessfully first to the competent Regional Court and then to the Supreme Court.   In the meantime the applicant’s daughter had filed a complaint with the District Prosecutor’s Office. After a report had been drawn up asserting that the applicant had not been beaten and recommending that no criminal investigation be opened, no further action was taken.   The applicant’s daughter also lodged complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Directorate of the National Police in Gabrovo. It does not appear that any further investigative action was taken by those authorities.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the Commission on 17 June 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 when Protocol No. 11 came into force. The Court declared the application partly admissible on 3 April 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that she had been ill-treated by police officers following her arrest in April 1995 and that the subsequent investigations into her ill-treatment were ineffective. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 – ill-treatment of the applicant   The evidence suggested that the applicant had been in good health when she was arrested. When she left the police station she had been diagnosed to be suffering from cerebral contusion and haematoma were found beneath her right scapula and on her left temple. The Court considered that – especially in view of the applicant’s age – those injuries were serious enough for their infliction to amount to ill-treatment for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore fell to the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to how those injuries had been caused and to adduce appropriate evidence that could cast doubt on the applicant’s version of events.   In the light of the statements made by the police officers concerned, which appeared inconsistent with the injuries found and with certain unequivocally established facts, the Court concluded that no satisfactory and convincing explanation had been advanced by the Government and that therefore the applicant’s injuries were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. The Court emphasised that, in respect of a person deprived of his or her liberty, any recourse to physical force which had not been made strictly necessary by his or her conduct diminished human dignity and was in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 in that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.   Article 3 – ineffective investigation   The Court considered that the medical evidence and the applicant’s complaints and testimony together raised a reasonable suspicion that her injuries could have been caused by the police.   As regards the action taken by the authorities, it was noteworthy that the same prosecutor who dealt with the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which were conducted with considerable despatch, had not undertaken an independent verification of Mrs Toteva’s daughter’s allegations. That verification had been entrusted to the same police officer who had dealt with the proceedings against the applicant. No attempt appeared to have been made to gather medical evidence as to the applicant’s injuries. After this verification no further investigative steps appeared to have been taken and no formal decision had been issued in respect of her daughter’s complaints.   In view of the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s arguable claim that she had been ill-treated, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in this respect too.     ***   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.