CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 février 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   103 15.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT JASAR v. “THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Jasar v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no.   69908/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police; and, a violation of Article 3 (lack of an effective investigation), concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a total of EUR   9,148 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Pejrusan Jasar, is a Macedonian national of Roma ethnic origin who was born in 1965 and lives in Štip (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   On 16 April 1998 the applicant was in a local bar. A row started in the bar and gunshots were fired. Several police officers came to restore the peace and the applicant was subsequently injured.   The Government and applicant gave different accounts of how the applicant sustained his injuries.   The applicant maintained that police officers grabbed him by his hair and forced him into a police van. He was taken into police custody, where he claimed he was kicked in the head, punched and beaten with a truncheon by a police officer. A medical report produced the following day stated that the applicant had sustained “light bodily injury” at the police station, in the form of numerous injuries to his head, hand and back.   According to the respondent Government, the applicant was involved in the row in the bar and was later taken to the police station after he had obstructed police officers. No force was used against him at the police station and no charges brought against him.   In May 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor against an unidentified police officer. After two inquiries, the public prosecutor stated, in November 1999, that he had officially requested the Ministry of the Interior to make additional inquiries. There has been no indication that any further investigative steps were taken.   The applicant also brought civil proceedings against the State, claiming that he was a victim of police brutality. In March 1999 his claim for damages was dismissed. The national courts, on the basis of evidence from witnesses and a medical expert, found that the applicant might well have sustained his injuries in the bar, either as a result of the brawl or while resisting arrest, and that the arresting officers had not used excessive force.   At the hearing in the case before the European Court of Human Rights on 19 January 2006 the applicant also claimed that he had been beaten by the police in the bar before he was taken into custody.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 February 2001 and declared admissible on 11 April 2006. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 January 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Renate Jaeger (German), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Acting Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he was ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation was carried out. He relied on Article 3 and Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the alleged ill-treatment   The Court considered that the applicant had failed to raise his complaint that he had been beaten by the police before being taken into custody either before the civil courts or before the public prosecutor. Furthermore, in the medical certificate, the applicant had declared that he had sustained the injuries while in police custody.   The Court observed that it had received no evidence which could call into question the findings of the national courts and support the applicant's allegations. Eight years after the events in question – owing primarily to the national authorities' inactivity and reluctance to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations – the Court was not able to establish which version of events was the more credible.   In conclusion, since the evidence before it did not enable the Court to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to physical and mental ill-treatment while in police custody, the Court considered that there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the alleged ill treatment.   Concerning the lack of an effective investigation The Court noted that the applicant's lawyer lodged a criminal complaint about the alleged police brutality together with a medical certificate, such that the matter was brought to the attention of the relevant domestic authority. The Court was satisfied that it raised at least a reasonable suspicion that the applicant's injuries could have been caused by the treatment he had undergone while in the police custody. As such, the public prosecutor was under a duty to investigate whether an offence had been committed. Yet the only investigative measure undertaken by the prosecutor was his request for additional information submitted to the Ministry, made more than a year and a half after the criminal complaint had been lodged.   In addition, the inactivity of the public prosecutor prevented the applicant from taking over the investigation as a subsidiary complainant and denied him access to the subsequent proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant was still barred from taking over the investigation as the public prosecutor had not yet taken a decision to dismiss the complaint.   In those circumstances, having regard to the lack of any investigation into the allegations made by the applicant that he had been ill-treated by the police while in custody, the Court held that there has been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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] Juge élu au titre du Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.