Today the ECHR delivered two judgments involving ill-treatment by Russian police, the cases of Alexandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia and Vanfuli v. Russia. In my previous post dated 1 November 2011 I discussed the likely results of these cases, stating that the ECHR would sustain most of the applicants’ claims. As can be seen from the holdings of these ECHR judgments this was, in fact, the case.
Case of Alexandra Dmitriyeva:
In this case the applicant alleged violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. [For more information about the facts of the case see my previous post of 1 November 2011].
1. The substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the way in which the applicant was arrested and brought to the police car on 8 December 2001.
The Court made this conclusion based on the applicant’s version of the events, since the Russian Government failed to discharge its burden of proof and rebut the applicant’s allegations.
2. The procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate properly the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and ill-treatment.
The Court found numerous deficiencies in the domestic investigation into the alleged ill-treatment, in particular, a number of necessary investigation actions that would resolve inconsistencies in the witness statements was not conducted at the domestic level at all.
3. Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention on 8 and 9 December 2001.
The Court based its findings on the applicant’s submissions which coincided with the findings of the CPT[1], since the Russian Government failed to submit relevant information capable to refute the applicant’s allegations.
4. Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention on 8 and 9 December 2001.
The Court found that the applicant’s arrest was neither “effected for the purpose of bringing [her] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence” nor could be “reasonably considered necessary to prevent [her] committing an offence or fleeing after having done so” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
5. Article 8 of the Convention on account of the unlawful entry by the policemen to the applicant’s apartment on 8 December 2001.
The Court accepted that the police had entered the applicant’s accommodation within the apartment in pursuit of a suspect (her son). However, the police failed to notify a prosecutor of the incident contrary to the requirements of the domestic law. In this connection, the ECHR found that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 had not been “in accordance with the law”.
6. Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention.
The applicant had no effective remedy to challenge the actions of the police, since most of the documents related to her arrest, detention and subsequent release have been destroyed or never existed.
The Court ordered Russia to pay to the applicant 15,000 Euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 550 Euros in respect of costs and expenses.
Case of Vanfuli:
In this case the applicant alleged violations of Articles 3 and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. [For more information about the facts of the case see my previous post of 1 November 2011].
The ECHR sustained the majority of the claims of the applicant and held that there had been a violation of:
1. Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate properly the circumstances of the applicant’s ill-treatment.
The Court found numerous deficiencies in the domestic investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, in particular, the late institution of proceedings in connection with his complaints.
2. Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of a lawyer while the applicant was in police custody.
The Court concluded, inter alia, that “even though the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him at the trial and subsequently on appeal, the absence of a lawyer while he was in police custody irretrievably affected his defence rights.”
3. Article 6 § 3 (d) taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that his conviction was to a decisive event based on evidence he could not challenge.
The applicant’s conviction was based on the pre-trial statements of witnesses whom the applicant had no possibility to question.
The Court did not find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb (the alleged beatings of the applicant by police while in custody). The Court considered that the evidence before it submitted by both parties did not meet the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The ECHR ordered Russia to pay to the applicant 6,000 Euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
[1] European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment