Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
24.07.2008
Facts
Prison warders of the detention facility where the applicant was being held entered his cell and, to force the inmates out, hit them with rubber truncheons. The warders continued to beat the applicant even when he had been forced into the corridor and had fallen to the floor. He was immediately examined by the prison medical personnel, and it was noted he suffered multiple injuries. The Government submitted that the warders had to resort to force owing to unrest which risked turning into a riot. The prosecutor refused to bring criminal proceedings against the warders as he considered their actions to have been lawful.
Complaint
The applicant complained that he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that the use of rubber truncheons in the applicant’s case had had a legal basis. Use of force might, on occasion, be necessary to ensure prison security, maintain order or prevent crime in penitentiary facilities. However, the Court did not see any reason why the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant had been necessary. Indeed, the warders’ actions had been grossly disproportionate to what the applicant had been accused of, disobedience. The warders might admittedly have needed to resort to physical force to remove inmates from their cell, but the Court was not convinced that hitting them with a truncheon had been conducive to achieving that aim. Furthermore, the Court did not consider it established that the applicant had actively resisted the warders. In the detention facility’s documents, he had not been listed as one of the instigators of or active participants in the incident. Given that the warders had continued hitting him even when he had complied with the order and had fallen to the floor, the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant had been a form of reprisal. That punitive violence had been deliberately intended to arouse in him feelings of fear and humiliation and to break his physical or moral resistance. The injuries have caused him serious physical pain and intense mental suffering and had resulted in long-term damage to his health. The applicant had therefore been subjected to treatment which could be described as torture.
The applicant had received at least partial compensation for the ill-treatment he had suffered. However, in cases of wilful ill-treatment, a violation of Article 3 could not be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim because, if that were the case, it would be possible for the State to avoid prosecuting and punishing those responsible and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment would be ineffective in practice. The Court therefore had also to examine the effectiveness of the investigation. As regards its promptness, it had taken the facility’s administration 3 days to inform the prosecution authorities about the incident, a delay which could have resulted in a loss of evidence. More, the Court noted multiple issues with gathering and reliance of evidence. The Court was particularly struck by the fact that the courts had awarded the applicant compensation relying on a mere lack of sufficient control on the part of the detention facility over its warders. In view of those failings, the authorities’ reaction to a grave incident of deliberate ill-treatment by its agents had been inadequate and inefficient and the measures they had taken had failed to provide appropriate redress to the applicant. Thus, there had been a violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs.