THIRD SECTION
Application no. 26544/10
Aldis BERNOTS
against Latvia
lodged on 14 April 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aldis Bernots, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and is currently held in custody in Rīga Central Prison (Rīgas centrālcietums).
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The applicant’s state of health
3. According to the applicant, he suffers from opiate addiction. He also suffers from the hepatitis C virus (HCV) and, at the time of his arrest, he had tuberculosis, for which he had been undergoing treatment at liberty since 12 February 2008.
B. The applicant’s arrest and conviction
1. First set of criminal proceedings
4. On 10 May 2008 around 6 p.m. the applicant was arrested by the police in the street on suspicion of aggravated theft. According to the applicant, two police officers pushed him on the ground and beat him up. He suffered bodily injuries, including a fractured clavicle with dislocation (salauzts atslēgas kauls ar kaula dislokāciju). Subsequently, the police officers discovered that the applicant had carried drugs, for which fact another set of criminal proceedings were opened (see paragraph 10 et seq. below).
5. The applicant was taken to a public hospital to treat his injuries, where a sling was put around his neck to support his arm. It was noted that he had bruises on his head and chest.
6. On 10 May 2008, at 21:30 the applicant’s arrest record was made by a police officer of the Jūrmala Police Department (see paragraph 14 et seq. below).
7. On 12 May 2008 a judge ordered the applicant into custody. He remained detained for the purposes of the first set of criminal proceedings until 8 October 2008.
8. Finally, on 28 April 2011 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent for adjudication to the Jūrmala City Court (Jūrmalas pilsētas tiesa), where it is currently pending.
9. In November 2011 the applicant was transferred from Daugavgrīva Prison to Rīga Central Prison, to facilitate his participation in the hearings before the first instance court.
2. Second set of criminal proceedings
10. On 2 July 2008 another set of criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant in relation to illegal drugs, which had been discovered during the search on his person on 10 May 2008.
11. On 7 October 2008 the Jūrmala City Court convicted the applicant of repeated possession of illegal drugs and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. This sentence was combined with a sentence handed down in an unconnected set of criminal proceedings to a total of six years’ imprisonment. The applicant remained in custody for the purposes of the second set of proceedings.
12. On 7 January 2009 the Rīga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) upheld the ruling of the first-instance court. On 3 March 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
13. On 14 July 2010 he was transferred from Rīga Central Prison to serve his sentence in Daugavgrīva Prison, where he remained until November 2011.
C. The conditions in the short-term detention facility in the Jūrmala Police Department and transfer to Olaine Prison Hospital
14. On 10 May 2008 the applicant was placed in the short-term detention facility in the Jūrmala Police Department. According to the applicant, no investigative activities were performed during his stay in this facility.
15. According to the applicant, he was kept in complete isolation for nine days in a cell with no daylight. Taking into account that his arm was tied in a sling, he could not undress in the evening or change his clothes. Allegedly, upon instructions of the investigator, D.J., he could not participate in daily walks, have a shower or shave.
16. In addition, the applicant informed the investigator that his state of health required:
(i) to continue his tuberculosis treatment in view of negative effects on health if discontinued;
(ii) to provide medication for his opiate addiction;
(iii) to ensure a particular diet in view of the hepatitis C virus;
(iv) to change the applicant’s sling on his arm due to its’ loosening up.
In view of these issues, the applicant requested that he be transferred to Rīga Central Prison, where doctors where authorised to send him to a prison hospital for treatment.
17. On 16 May 2008 the applicant was transferred to Rīga Central Prison.
18. On 4 June 2008 the applicant was transferred to Olaine Prison Hospital, where he received treatment on inpatient basis until 12 September 2008 and on outpatient basis until 17 February 2009. He was then transferred back to Rīga Central Prison, where he remained until 14 July 2010.
D. Review of the applicant’s complaints
19. On 15 February 2010 the Internal Security Department of the State Police (Valsts Policijas Iekšējās Drošības Birojs) informed the applicant that it had been refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with his complaint against the inspector D.J. about the conditions of detention. The decision to that effect contained no more information than the reference to the investigative material ENŽ no. 144 of 12 February 2010.
20. On 15 March 2010, upon the complaint by the applicant, a prosecutor with a final decision upheld the refusal to open the criminal proceedings. Among other things it was noted that he had not lodged any complaints about the conditions of detention and the activities of D.J. with the Jūrmala Police Department and the Jūrmala prosecutor’s office until 19 December 2009.
COMPLAINTS
21. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions in the short-term detention facility in the Jūrmala Police Department. He alleged, in particular, that there had been no daylight in that facility and that there had been no possibility to have daily walks and that he could not change his clothes, take a shower or shave. He had not been able to lodge any complaints with the domestic authorities in that period.
22. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant also alleged that the investigator, D.J., had deliberately protracted the applicant’s transfer to an investigative prison (Rīgas centrālcietums) and denied medical assistance with a view to obtaining his confession. The applicant also alleged that D.J. had failed to inform his relatives about his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies in respect to his complaint about the conditions of detention in the Jūrmala Police Department, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Were they available and effective?
2. The Government are asked to submit the following information and relevant copies concerning:
(a) examples of domestic case-law where the complaints about the conditions of pre-trial detention facilities have been adjudicated by the domestic courts on merits at the material time and to indicate if these rulings are final;
(b) examples of practice of any other competent domestic authority in dealing with such complaints at the material time;
(c) the investigative material ENŽ no. 144 (date 12 February 2010).
3. Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in the Jūrmala Police Department compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy