Communicated on 29 September 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 21476/14
Edgaras KROGERTAS
against Latvia
lodged on 10 March 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Edgaras Krogertas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Riga. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Sandlers, a lawyer practising in Riga.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s beating and medical examination
On 7 September 2010 the applicant, who was held in detention in the Riga Central Prison, was conveyed to a hearing at the Riga Regional Court in the criminal proceedings against him. After the hearing the applicant and two other detainees were taken to a short-term detention facility at the Riga City Latgale District Court. Even though the applicant showed no resistance, the convoying officers started beating the applicant with rubber truncheons. The beating increased after the convoying officers gave the applicant some instructions in Latvian, which he could not understand. The convoying officers pulled the applicant’s coat over his head and continued beating him for several minutes, also after the applicant had fallen to the ground. After being transported back to the Riga Central Prison, the applicant requested medical aid but did not receive it. The applicant repeated his request also on the following day but to no avail.
On 8 September 2010 at around 2 p.m. the applicant was visited by his lawyer. On the basis of the lawyer’s oral request the applicant was brought to a doctor who conducted a preliminary examination. On the same day the applicant’s lawyer submitted a complaint with the Prisons Administration requesting investigation in the matter and provision of proper medical aid. This complaint was forward to the State Police.
The medical report of 8 September 2013 stated that prior to the applicant’s lawyer’s request the applicant had not demanded doctor’s help. It read that, according to the applicant’s statement, he had been beaten up on 7 September 2010 at about 4:30 p.m. in the court’s premises. During the examination the applicant complained about pain in his thorax, left hip, and left thigh. The doctor noted that the applicant had “fresh” subcutaneous hematoma of 3x2,5cm on the left side of his thorax, a haemorrhage of 3x3cm in the area of left waist, a blue haemorrhage of 25x4cm on the left hip, a haemorrhage of 10x8cm on the left thigh. On 15 September 2010 the applicant was examined by the doctor on account of his head cold, cough, and muscle pain. The diagnosis was: “Acute respiratory viral illness. A condition following a thorax contusion”.
2. The investigation and criminal proceedings
On 22 October 2010 the Riga Region Police informed the applicant’s lawyer that on account of his complaint an examination had been conducted. The convoying officers, who had convoyed the applicant on 7 September 2010, categorically denied even a possibility of bringing a person they were supposed to convoy to premises of another court. The response also stated that the employees of the Convoying Battalion of the State Police were not equipped with rubber truncheons. Besides, after returning to the Riga Central Prison the applicant had been examined and had not expressed any complaints. Accordingly, no grounds for disciplinary responsibility were established. Finally, the response stated that without additional investigative measures it was not possible to establish how the injuries noted on 8 September 2010 had been obtained. Therefore, the materials were forwarded to the Internal Security Office of the State Police.
On 2 November 2010 the Internal Security Office of the State Police refused to initiate criminal proceedings. On 12 November 2010 the applicant’s representative submitted a complaint. On 13 January 2011, following a failure to receive a response, the applicant’s representative submitted a repeated complaint. On 22 February 2011 the applicant’s representative submitted yet another complaint.
On 25 February 2011 the applicant’s representative was informed that on the same date the Internal Security Office of the State Police had instituted criminal proceedings on the basis of the applicant’s complaint from 17 September 2010.
On 22 March 2011 a medico-legal expertise was conducted on the basis of the medical documentation. It concluded that the injuries could have been caused by at least four blows that had been administered by hard, blunt objects, however, it was not possible to identify the object more precisely due to the lack of the information in the initial medical record. One of the questions posed to the expert was whether any of the applicant’s injuries could have been self-inflicted. The response read: “It is possible to self‑inflict any injuries on the body parts that can be reached with one’s hand.”
On 3 December 2012 the Internal Security Office of the State Police terminated the criminal proceedings. The decision confirmed that following his hearing the applicant was taken to the Riga City Latgale District Court. The applicant and two other detainees were taken to the court’s premises separately with a 10 min interval. Aside from the applicant himself, also the other two detainees testified that they had been beaten and the applicant’s cell mates from the Riga Central Prison confirmed that the applicant had complained about the said beating. However, the decision noted that the testimonies of the other two detainees and of the other witnesses were contradictory and circumstantial. No direct and objective evidence had been obtained confirming that the applicant’s bodily injuries had been inflicted by the employees of the Convoying Battalion of the State Police.
On 8 January 2013 and on 14 February 2013 the decision of 3 December 2012 was upheld by the supervising prosecutors, however, on 22 March 2013 it was quashed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Riga Court District on account of the incompleteness and inconsistency of the conclusions made.
On 3 June 2013 the Internal Security Office of the State Police again terminated the criminal proceedings explaining more elaborately the reasons for considering the evidence obtained insufficient and contradictory. On 18 September 2013 the Chief Prosecutor of the Riga Court District upheld this decision. The Chief Prosecutor noted that the question as to who else could have inflicted the bodily injuries on the applicant had remained open, as the medico-legal expert had concluded that it was possible to self-inflict any injuries on the body parts that can be reached with one’s hand.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 317 of the Criminal Law at the relevant time provided that a State official whose intentional actions manifestly exceeded the powers and authority vested in him or her by law or pursuant to his or her assigned duties shall be criminally liable if substantial harm was thereby caused to the State, administrative order or the rights and interests protected by law of other persons. The applicable punishment was imprisonment of up to three years, community service or a fine of up to one hundred minimum monthly salaries.
If the same actions had had serious consequences or involved violence or threat of violence, or if they had been carried out with the intent of obtaining a material benefit, the applicable punishment was imprisonment of up to five years, community service or a fine of up to two hundred minimum monthly salaries. If, however, the same action had been connected with torture or had caused grave consequences, the applicable punishment was imprisonment of up to ten years.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill‑treatment on 7 September 2010 by the convoying officers, as well as about the promptness, quality and independence of the ensuing investigation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. 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?
3. In particular, was the investigation independent and impartial (see Holodenko v. Latvia, no. 17215/07, § 78, 2 July 2013 and Bērziņš v. Latvia, no. 25147/07, §§ 107, 109, 25 February 2014) and compatible with the other requirements set out in the case law of the Court?
The Government are requested to submit to the Court a copy of the investigative file of the criminal case No. 11819000711.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy