Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 151
April 2012
J.L. v. Latvia - 23893/06
Judgment 17.4.2012 [Section III]
Article 3
Effective investigation
Violence in prison by fellow inmates in reprisal for cooperating with the police: violation
Facts – The applicant alleges that, after he gave evidence for the prosecution in proceedings against another prisoner, he was physically and sexually assaulted by fellow inmates following his arrival at the Central Prison to start a prison sentence. However, according to the applicant, the prison doctor who rendered him medical assistance refused to draw up a medical report and a prison guard refused to initiate an investigation into the assault. The applicant was then transferred to another cell and some two months later to a different prison, where he complained about his ill-treatment in the Central Prison to the Ombudsman. Following an inquiry, the Central Prison informed the Ombudsman that the applicant had never complained of any ill-treatment there.
Law – Article 3 (procedural aspect): It was undisputed that the applicant had collaborated with the police in investigating a serious crime, while he himself was due to stand trial. The authorities should therefore have taken measures to ensure his safety as a collaborator of justice. However, there was no information that any reasonably expected measures – such as informing the prosecutor and the prison authorities of his cooperation – were taken before he was transferred to prison. On the facts, the applicant had an arguable claim of ill-treatment, which under domestic law both the prosecutor and the prison administration authorities were obliged to investigate. The prison administration had requested the Central Prison to carry out the investigation, but it was flawed in a number of ways: no medical examination was carried out, no statements were taken from the applicant or the prison doctor, and the applicant was never informed of the results. That investigation could not therefore be regarded as independent or intended to establish what actually happened. In fact, despite the Office of the Prosecutor’s broad powers to supervise places of detention and to review complaints by individuals with restricted capacity to protect their rights, the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had been left unexamined. Finally, the Court noted the general lack of coordination among the investigators, the prosecution and the prison authorities in preventing possible ill-treatment of detainees who, owing to their cooperation in the disclosure of criminal offences, were particularly vulnerable and prone to prison violence. The conduct of the national authorities in the applicant’s case and the manner in which they had applied the domestic law in reply to his claim of ill-treatment had therefore failed to comply with the State’s procedural obligation under Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
(See also Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, 27 May 2008, Information Note no. 108; and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, 10 February 2011, Information Note no. 138)
© 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