Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 101
October 2007
Colibaba v. Moldova - 29089/06
Judgment 23.10.2007 [Section IV]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Prosecutor-General threatens Bar member with criminal investigation for having made “false” human rights allegations to international organisations: violation
Facts: On 25 April 2006, while in police custody, the applicant was ill-treated by police officers with a view to extracting a confession. His body was suspended from a metal bar with a coat hanger passed under his arms. While in this position he was repeatedly hit with a chair in the back of his head while his legs and arms were tied behind his back. Several days later the applicant was again ill-treated by police officers; this time he was hit in the head with a two-litre plastic bottle full of water as well as punched and kicked. On 29 April 2006 the applicant was taken to hospital, where he underwent a superficial medical examination conducted in the presence of the police officers who had ill-treated him. The medical report issued on that occasion concluded that the applicant had no signs of violence on his body other than self-inflicted injuries caused by his attempted suicide. All further requests for medical examinations made by the applicant’s lawyer were refused. Following wide media pressure, on 16 May 2006 the applicant was released from detention and immediately sought medical assistance. Following detailed medical examination, a non-governmental centre for torture victims concluded that the applicant had suffered severe bodily injury including consequences of cranial trauma. Another medical check-up in a public hospital confirmed those findings. Meanwhile, the applicant’s lawyer had lodged a criminal complaint concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The prosecutor dismissed that complaint on the grounds that the suspected police officers had denied all accusations, that the medical report of 28 April 2006 had shown no bodily injury and that no coat hangers had been found in the office where the alleged ill-treatment had taken place. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on the same grounds, even though meanwhile he had submitted new medical reports. After the applicant had lodged his application with the Court, on 26 June 2006 the Moldovan Prosecutor General addressed a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association stating, inter alia, that “some Moldovan lawyers involve international organisations specialising in the protection of human rights in the examination by the national authorities of criminal cases”, whereby they “[make] public on an international scale false information about alleged breaches of human rights which gravely prejudice the image of [the] country”. He expressly mentioned the name of the applicant’s lawyer, stating that the Prosecutor General’s office would undertake a criminal investigation into the matter. At the same time the Prosecutor General requested the Bar to take appropriate action and “prevent as far as possible any prejudice to the authority of the Republic of Moldova”.
Law: Article 3 (substantive part) – The Government submitted that the applicant had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment since no traces of violence had been found on his body during the medical examination of 29 April 2006. The Court expressed doubts as to the credibility of the medical report relied on by the Government, since the applicant could have felt intimidated by the presence during that examination of the police officers who had previously ill-treated him. On the other hand, the Court found no reason to distrust the findings of the two medical examinations the applicant had undergone immediately on his release from detention, both of which had concluded that he had suffered a cranial trauma. The Government, who had the burden of proof to the contrary, had given no explanation concerning the origin of those injuries: violation.
Article 3 (procedural part) – The Court observed a series of shortcomings in the investigation of the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations by the national authorities. Not only had the prosecutor dismissed his request for an independent medical examination while he had still been in custody, but later on the court had showed no interest in the subsequent medical reports submitted by the applicant nor had it given any explanation as to why they had been dismissed: violation.
Article 34 – Having examined the Prosecutor General’s letter, the Court agreed with the applicant that it had not seemed to have been merely a call to lawyers to observe professional ethics as claimed by the Government. The language employed by the Prosecutor General, the fact that he had expressly named the applicant’s lawyer and the warning that a criminal investigation would be brought as a result of the latter’s allegedly improper complaint to international organisations could easily have been construed as amounting to intimidation. Even though it was not clear whether the Prosecutor General had known about the present application when he had written the letter, the wording could in any event have had a chilling effect on the applicant’s lawyer’s intention to bring or pursue his client’s case before the Court: violation.
Article 41 – EUR 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy