Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69
November 2004
Martinez Sala and Others v. Spain - 58438/00
Judgment 2.11.2004 [Section IV]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Alleged ill-treatment in police custody and effectiveness of the investigation: no violation, violation
Facts: The fifteen applicants were Spanish nationals who were arrested before the opening of the Olympic Games in Barcelona, in the context of a police operation targeted against presumed sympathisers of a Catalan independence movement. They alleged that they were ill-treated by the police at the time of their arrest and before being brought before a court, a period which lasted from two to six days depending on the individual case. The Spanish Government disputed the existence of ill-treatment. None of the numerous medical reports drawn up by forensic doctors during the critical period attested to signs of violence; the reports stated that, apart from marks made by handcuffs, certain detainees had marks of superficial injuries, haematoma, redness or inflammation. The applicants filed several complaints of ill-treatment against the police. The investigating judge asked a forensic doctor who had examined the prisoners to describe the circumstances in which the medical examinations had been conducted. Based on the medical reports drawn up during the periods in custody and on the report commissioned by the judge, the courts found that there was no evidence proving the reality of the alleged ill-treatment and also that it was difficult to identify the alleged perpetrators of the alleged offences. Those applicants who were committed before the criminal judge on charges of terrorism and crimes as an armed band were sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from one to ten years; the others were acquitted.
Law: Article 3 – Allegations of ill-treatment during arrest and police custody: The applicants’ allegations were unsupported by the evidence submitted to the Court: the forensic doctors’ reports did not mention significant signs or traces of ill-treatment, and the reports prepared by doctors chosen by six applicants subsequent to their release failed to clarify that point. In addition, the investigation by the domestic authorities had not been sufficiently complete to establish which versions of events was the more credible.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Obligation to carry out an effective official investigation into the allegations: In investigating the allegations of ill-treatment, the domestic authorities relied on the medical examinations drawn up by the forensic doctor while the applicants were in custody and on the report by that same doctor describing the circumstances in which the medical visits had been conducted. It was on this sole basis that the courts concluded that there was no evidence to prove the matters complained of. In the Court’s opinion, the investigations had not been sufficiently thorough and effective. Although the applicants had referred in their complaints to the police officers who had questioned them, the courts had ruled that it was difficult to identify the presumed perpetrators of the ill-treatment; thus, statements were never taken from the police officers implicated by the applicants. Moreover, the judicial authorities had turned down the applicants’ request for statements by police officers and expert reports to be included in the case file; they had also failed to take statements from the applicants. In short, the authorities had dismissed all the applicants’ requests for evidence to be obtained, thereby denying them a reasonable opportunity to establish the matters of which they complained.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them the joint sum claimed for costs and expenses.
© 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