Information Note on the Court’s case-law 25
December 2000
Egmez v. Cyprus - 30873/96
Judgment 21.12.2000 [Section IV]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Ill-treatment by police: violation
Facts: The facts, as established by the European Commission of Human Rights following the taking of evidence by a delegation, are as follows. A team of anti-drug police officers was sent to arrest the applicant, a British national, at a meeting point close to the buffer zone. He resisted arrest and attempted to escape but was apprended by two officers, with whom he fought. One struck him on the head with a firearm, the second threw him to the ground and a third handcuffed him. He was taken to police headquarters and then to hospital, where medical examinations revealed numerous bruises and other injuries. At a hearing the following day, the applicant was remanded in custody. A subsequent medical examination by a United Nations doctor also revealed extensive injuries. However, a police investigation concluded that the injuries had been sustained during arrest and that the force used had been proportionate. The applicant complained to the Ombudsman, claiming that he had been subjected to a violent, unprovoked attack by a number of officers on arrest and that he had subsequently been tortured. The Ombudsman concluded that the applicant had been ill-treated on arrest and while being taken to the police headquarters. However, no criminal or other proceedings were brought against the policemen.
Law: Government's preliminary objection (exhaustion of domestic remedies) – A complaint to an Ombudsman is not in principle a remedy which has to be exhausted, but by complaining to the Ombudsman the applicant drew the authorities' attention to his allegations and, since the Attorney General was prepared to treat them as credible, the applicant had an arguable claim. The authorities were therefore placed under an obligation to carry out a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. There is no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the Ombudsman's investigation, but he does not have power to order measures or impose sanctions, so that at the time of publication of the report the authorities' obligation had not been discharged. While it opened the way for the institution of criminal proceedings, the Attorney General refrained from taking any action. The authorities assumed too readily that the applicant would not cooperate and thus prevent an effective prosecution. In any event, the obligation does not necessarily entail the punishment at all costs of the accused, but only an investigation capable of leading to their punishment, and it would therefore have been discharged by the institution of criminal proceedings. In this respect, the importance of the message conveyed to the public should not be under-estimated. Consequently, the applicant exhausted domestic remedies by complaining to the Ombudsman and the preliminary objection must be dismissed.
Article 3 – The Government accepted that the applicant had been intentionally subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and immediately afterwards. The aim was not, however, to extract a confession; rather, the injuries were inflicted over a short period of heightened tension and emotions. Moreover, there is uncertainty as to the gravity of the injuries sustained (the photographs submitted by the applicant having been "retouched") and there is no convincing evidence of long-term consequences. The ill-treatment cannot be qualified as torture but was serious enough to be considered inhuman treatment.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 5 § 1 – On the basis of the facts established by the Commission, the applicant was arrested on reasonable suspicion of an offence.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 2 – On the basis of the facts established by the Commission, the applicant was informed promptly and in a language which he understood of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 3 – On the basis of the facts established by the Commission, the hearing held the day after the applicant's arrest ensured compliance with this provision.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 4 – Following the hearing the day after the applicant's arrest, the lawfulness of his detention was reviewed on two further occasions, once automatically and once on an application for release.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – In view of the reasoning concerning the preliminary objection, there was a breach of this provision also.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 – The Court has always considered it appropriate to examine claims concerning the alleged absence of remedies in respect of ill-treatment under Article 13.
Conclusion: no separate issue (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court dismissed the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage but awarded him £10,000 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.
© 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