Communicated on 6 October 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 74389/13
Petri PIHONI
against Albania
lodged on 25 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petri Pihoni, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Pogradec. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Marku, a lawyer practising in Tirana.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 August 2012 the applicant witnessed a forceful verbal exchange between N.P., a family relative of his, and A.S in one of the main streets of Pogradec. The applicant’s intervention to calm down N.P. and A.S. was unsuccessful. The verbal exchange became increasingly heated and ended in the use of physical violence.
After the eruption of the physical violence, a special police unit of the Rapid Reaction Force (“RRF”) arrived at the site and intervened to put an end to the violence. As a result, the applicant and the other two individuals were detained. On the way to the police station, he alleges that he was offended, threatened and ill-treated by RRF police officers. His requests to be taken to the hospital to receive medical treatment went unanswered.
On 7 August 2012 the applicant was released from detention. He went to a medical centre, because he was feeling unwell. The medical examination found that the applicant had been injured by a hard, blunt object, which had caused him a wound that had to be sutured, three scratches (dërrmishje), an oedema and an ecchymosis. The above injuries resulted in the applicant’s incapacity to work for nine days.
On the same date the applicant, relying on the medical examination, lodged a criminal complaint against the RRF police officers with the Pogradec prosecutor’s office for having committed arbitrary actions in breach of Article 250 of the Criminal Code.
Having not received any response from the Pogradec prosecutor’s office about the progress of the investigation, on 27 December 2012 the applicant sought the assistance of the Albanian Centre for the Rehabilitation of Trauma and Torture (“the Centre”). On the same date the Centre unsuccessfully requested the prosecutor’s office to provide them information about the applicant’s case.
On 11 May 2013 the Centre repeated its request to the Pogradec prosecutor’s office. It also complained to the General Prosecutor’s office that no information had been provided to the applicant about the progress of the investigation eight months after the incident.
On 7 June 2013 the Pogradec prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on 13 May 2013 it had stayed the investigation. According to the decision, the prosecutor had questioned eye witnesses, identified RRF police officers and questioned them, examined the register logs of the police station, obtained and examined the footage of the closed circuit video cameras of two nearby banks and conducted another forensic report. Despite the above investigative actions, it could not be determined the object that had caused the applicant’s injuries. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had been involved in the verbal exchange between N.P. and A.S., which had escalated into violence as a result of which the applicant and A.S. had exchanged blows with each other. It could not therefore be established that police officers had acted in breach of Article 250 of the CC. However, the decision also stated as follows:
“As regards the complaint about the use of physical violence by RRF police officers during Petrit Pihoni’s escorting to the police station, it is suspected that the criminal offence of the abuse of duty under Article 248 of the Criminal Code has been carried out.
Injuries, which may have been caused during his escorting by RRF police officers, have been inflicted on Petri Pihoni in breach of the (...) law.
During the investigation Petri Pihoni was questioned several times about whether he could identify the RRF police officer(s) who had punched him. He stated that he was unable to identify the person, because the blow came from behind and he could not see which officer had administered it.
Neither has it been possible, on the basis of other evidence obtained during the investigation, to clarify this moment. Having regard to the fact that the criminal responsibility is individual and not collective, I consider that the investigation into this complaint should be stayed.”
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Criminal Code (“CC”)
Article 250 of the CC prohibits arbitrary actions committed by a person vested with public powers in the exercise of his duty and punishes those actions with a fine or a term of imprisonment of seven years.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 105 of the CCP provides for the right of any interested party to request copies and extracts of or separate acts of the criminal investigation file, at that party’s expense.
Article 326 of the CCP, which provides for the prosecutor’s right to stay the criminal investigation, reads as follows:
“1. When the author of the offence is unknown (...), the prosecutor may decide to stay the criminal investigation.
2. The stay of the criminal investigation is decided after all possible actions have been carried out.
3. The stayed criminal investigation can re-start by a decision of the prosecutor.”
There is no specific provision in the CCP providing for a right to appeal against the prosecutor’s decision staying a criminal investigation.
By decision no. 4 of 18 January 2013 the Constitutional Court stated that there existed no remedy under domestic law against a prosecutor’s decision staying the criminal investigation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 about the injuries he sustained as a result of the police intervention and that the investigation into the identification and punishment of the perpetrators has not been effective.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to provide a full copy of the criminal investigation file.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy