Anguelova v. Bulgaria

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43

June 2002

Anguelova v. Bulgaria - 38361/97

Judgment 13.6.2002 [Section I]

Article 2

Article 2-1

Life

Death in police custody, failure to provide medical care and effectiveness of investigation: violation

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Ill-treatment in police custody: violation

Facts: The applicant belongs to the Roma ethnic group. In 1996 her 17-year old son, A., died in police custody following his arrest on suspicion of attempted theft. He had been seen hanging around parked cars and had been chased and apprehended by an off-duty policeman. Witnesses later testified that A., who had been drinking, had slipped and fallen several times. Following the arrival of police officers, A. was handcuffed to a tree while they carried out a search of the area. He was then taken to the police station. However, no written detention order was issued. The register did not have any entry for him, although it mentioned an unidentified detainee; it subsequently appeared that the register had been altered. During the night, the police noticed that A.’s condition was deteriorating. Some time later, an officer drove to the hospital to fetch an ambulance and a doctor. A. was then taken to hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. According to a hospital doctor, the police officers stated that A. had been brought to the police station in the same condition as on his arrival at the hospital. An investigator was appointed to carry out an investigation. He questioned numerous witnesses, organised a reconstruction of events and ordered an autopsy, which established that the cause of death was internal bleeding as a result of a fractured skull around the left eyebrow, due to a blow either by or against a blunt object. Marks were also noted on the chest and wrists. The investigation was transferred to a military investigator because the death had occurred in police custody and five medical experts were appointed to re-examine these conclusions on the basis of the documentary material. The experts’ report confirmed the cause of death but stated that the haematoma had been in place for at least ten hours prior to death, rather than between four and six hours, as stated in the first report. On that basis, the investigation was terminated.

Law: Article 2 (death of the applicant’s son) – Since the death occurred in police custody, it was for the Government to provide a plausible explanation. The second forensic report, which relied solely on documentary material, departed in important aspects from the conclusions of the first report, without giving reasons, and this significantly reduced the reliability of its conclusions. It was unlikely that A. would have been out drinking, decided to steal car parts and been capable of running away if, as the second report suggested, he had already sustained a fractured skull ten hours before he died. The first report was consistent with the blow having been sustained while A. was in police custody and there were other injuries which could have been the result of the same events. The suggestion that the blow was sustained in a fall was not supported by the forensic evidence and none of the witnesses who had been seen A. before he was taken to the police station had reported any complaint of an ailment on his part. Moreover, significant weight had to be attached to the suspect behaviour of the police officers who, inter alia, appeared to have delayed access to a doctor and made an apparently false statement at the hospital, and to the fact that the detention records were manipulated, with A. being registered post factum as an unidentified person although the police in fact knew him. These matters required thorough investigation but no such investigation was undertaken. The Government’s explanation was thus implausible and no other explanation had been offered.