Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116
February 2009
Novinskiy v. Russia - 11982/02
Judgment 10.2.2009 [Section III]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Pressure by the authorities on a witness in a conditions-of-detention case before the Court: failure to comply with Article 34
Facts: In 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against him. He complained about overcrowding and hygiene in the pre-trial detention centres and submitted a number of statements from his fellow prisoners in support of his allegations. One of these witnesses, Mr S., was interviewed twice by the respondent Government while he was still in prison and once more after his release on parole. Even though no direct threats or overt intimidation were used, the witness stated that he had felt pressurised by the State in connection with the applicant's case. The applicant died in 2009 when serving a prison sentence. His widow pursued the application.
Law: The Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention.
Article 34 – Even though the main purpose of this provision was to protect applicants or potential applicants, in certain cases the effective exercise of an applicant's right of individual petition depended to a large extent on his or her ability to substantiate the claims by providing, among other things, statements from witnesses. It was especially true in conditions-of-detention cases where the Government alone had access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting the allegations and where, if they failed to provide such information, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for the Court to make findings of fact. In the applicant’s case, the Government had been found to have failed to submit appropriate information in respect of his allegations without good reason. The witness statements submitted by the applicant, including those of Mr S., had played a crucial role in the determination of the factual background to the applicant's Article 3 complaints. The Court could not avoid the impression that the officials had gone beyond mere verification of the witness’s statements and acted in a manner which he could reasonably have perceived as unnecessarily intimidating and coercive. In his initial statement, the witness had confirmed the applicant's account of the conditions of detention. Subsequently, the Government had produced another statement in which he had fully retracted his support for the applicant's case. After the Court had requested the Government to comment on the applicant's allegations of undue coercion and pressure on witnesses, the Government had submitted yet another statement by Mr S., in which he had essentially retracted his previous submission and endorsed his initial statement supporting the applicant's case. No specific reason for such a drastic change of position had been provided by the Government. In a further statement produced by the applicant, the witness had accused the authorities of having put pressure on him by using his pending application for release on parole as leverage. Even though that statement might not be conclusive, subsequent developments amply illustrated that he had indeed been subjected to pressure. After his release on parole, the prosecutor's office had sent a police patrol to his home address to escort him to the police station under threat of being brought by force or fined. The Government had failed to produce any document to prove the existence of a criminal case in connection with which Mr S. could have been summoned as a witness. Therefore, the Court found that it was totally inappropriate for him to have been summoned in the manner described. As regards the purpose of the interview, the Government had cited the need to check his earlier statements concerning undue pressure from the prison authorities. However, in the absence of any formal disciplinary or criminal inquiry into that issue and in view of the ominous form the interview had taken, the Court could not accept that explanation. In its view, the interview had been intended to put additional pressure on the witness whose depositions played a key role in the establishment of the facts in the proceedings before the Court and were indispensable to the effective exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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