FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 49939/11
Raivo JURŠEVSKIS
against Latvia
lodged on 4 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Raivo Jurševskis, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Brasa prison in Rīga.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The applicant’s detention
3. On 14 April 2009, between 5 and 6 p.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and placed in a short-term detention facility located in the premises of the Rīga Regional Police Department (Latgale district station of Rīga) (Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Rīgas pilsētas Latgales iecirknis).
4. According to the applicant, he was questioned by three police officers, including V.J. The applicant denied the accusation, but officer V.J. insisted on the applicant’s guilt. The police officer threatened to take the applicant to a forest, to shoot him as if he had been running away from the police or, if he would not confess, to make sure that his life in prison would be miserable. During the questioning officer V.J. held a sound suppressor in his hands and another police officer held a truncheon.
5. Then officer V.J. drew up a custody record (aizturēšanas protokols), which the applicant signed without having read it. The applicant was taken to a front counter of the police station where another officer searched him and placed him in a holding cell.
6. From 14 to 15 April 2009 the applicant was kept in the police station’s holding cell, where he could only sit down on a bench. There was no other furnishing. There was no toilet, no access to water or food.
7. On 15 April 2009 two officers, including V.J., escorted the applicant to the latter’s office and locked the doors. The applicant complained that he did not receive any food and had no access to a toilet. Officer V.J. replied that it would be better if the applicant cooperated. He asked the applicant to confess unless he wanted to encounter problems. The applicant refused, but eventually he wrote a confession, dictated by officer V.J.
8. On 15 April 2009, at 6.15 p.m., the applicant was transferred to the pre-trial detention facility in Rīga (Rīgas īslaicīgās aizturēšanas vieta), located in another building.
B. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
1. The preliminary investigation
9. On 16 April 2009 the applicant’s detention was authorised by an investigating judge. It was extended for another two months on 16 June 2009.
10. On an unspecified date the case was sent to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Rīga Regional Court for the purpose of bringing charges against the applicant.
11. On 3 August 2009 the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant and questioned him as a suspect. The applicant stated that he was not guilty and that his confession had been obtained under pressure. He asked that a witness be summoned, who could confirm his alibi.
12. On 11 August 2009 the applicant applied for release. On 18 August 2009 another investigating judge refused this request. The applicant testified before the investigating judge that he had been subjected to psychological pressure to confess.
13. On an unspecified date the case materials were sent to the Rīga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa).
2. The applicant’s trial
14. The hearings in the applicant’s case before the Rīga Regional Court took place on 19 October and 16 November 2009. A verdict was pronounced on 16 November 2009 whereby the applicant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The court heard testimony from police officer V.J., the applicant and three indirect witnesses, and examined circumstantial evidence.
15. The court took into account the pre-trial statements made by the applicant to the investigating authorities, while the applicant himself testified before the trial court that he had made those statements under psychological pressure.
16. The court examined the case materials and concluded that the applicant had not been under pressure and that he had willingly admitted his guilt during the preliminary investigation.
17. On 23 August 2011, following an appeal by the applicant, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) examined the case and upheld the regional court’s judgment, save for amending the sentence to 18 years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant’s complaints included the issue of his pre-trial statements under psychological pressure, their inadmissibility as evidence and the conditions of detention.
18. The Supreme Court referred to the results of the inquiry carried out by the Ombudsman, but noted that its findings did not relate to the lawfulness of the judgment of the first-instance court. A reference was made to section 130, paragraph 2 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, whereby only evidence obtained through violence, threats, blackmail, fraud or duress (spaidi) was inadmissible. Such elements were not present in the applicant’s case.
19. On 15 November 2011 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
C. The examination of the applicant’s complaints
20. On 8 February 2010 the applicant complained to the prosecution authorities of a breach of his rights and about the conditions of detention in the short-term detention facility. It was examined by the Internal Investigation Office of the Rīga Regional Police Department (Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Iekšējās izmeklēšanas birojs).
21. On 19 March 2010 they replied that the applicant, after his arrest, had not lodged any complaints. No complaints had been recorded in his custody record. The applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions of detention were “evaluated with criticism as they did not correspond to the case materials”.
22. On 7 April 2010 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman (Tiesībsargs), following which an inquiry was opened into the effectiveness of the investigation of the Internal Investigation Bureau.
23. On 1 July 2010 the Ombudsman replied to the applicant and set out its conclusion that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations about the events of 14 and 15 April 2009 had not been effective and, regard being had to its results, “reasonable doubts concerning the legality and the justification of the police officers’ actions have not been excluded”. A breach of Article 13 of the Convention was found and it was concluded that the recourse to the State Police was not an effective mechanism for protection of the applicant’s rights in the circumstances of the present case.
24. On 7 February 2011 a prosecutor refused the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints was forwarded to the Supreme Court, which was the relevant authority for complaints relating to the pending criminal proceedings against the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
25. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in custody and that the investigation into his complaints had not been effective. He alleged that the police officers had inflicted moral and psychological violence on him and had extorted a confession by keeping him in inhuman detention conditions and by threatening to place him in bad conditions. He also complained that he had been denied access to drinking water, food or toilets in the Rīga Regional Police Department (Latgale police station of Rīga).
26. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been convicted on the basis of admissions made while detained in the Rīga Regional Police Department (Latgale police station of Rīga) and that his complaints in that regard had not been examined with the requisite speed.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies in respect to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as concerns the conditions of detention? In view of the Court’s case-law (see Kadiķis v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, §§ 60-63, 4 May 2006; Ņikitenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62609/00, 11 May 2006; and, more recently, Petriks v. Latvia, no. 19619/03, § 20, 4 December 2012) were they available and effective?
2. The Government are asked to submit specific examples attesting to whether or not similar complaints have been examined by the domestic courts or any other competent authorities at the material time.
3. Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in the Rīga Regional Police Department (Latgale district station of Rīga) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in the Rīga Regional Police Department (Latgale district station of Rīga)?
5. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
6. Having regard to the admission into evidence by the criminal courts of his pre-trial statements, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, 1 June 2010).
7. The Government are invited to provide the Court with a copy of the applicant’s entire case file consisting of his complaints and all police, prosecutorial and judicial decisions and records between 14 April 2009 and 15 November 2011, as well as any and all other related documents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy