Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97
May 2007
Šečić v. Croatia - 40116/02
Judgment 31.5.2007 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Failure to carry out an effective investigation into racist attack on a member of the Roma: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Failure to carry out an effective investigation into racist attack on a member of the Roma: violation
Facts: The applicant, who was of Roma origin, was attacked by two unidentified men when collecting scrap metal in Zagreb in April 1999. They beat him with wooden planks and shouted racial abuse while two other men kept watch. Shortly afterwards the police arrived, interviewed people at the scene and made an unsuccessful search for the attackers. The applicant sustained multiple rib fractures and was later diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. In July 1999 his lawyer lodged a criminal complaint. However, neither the applicant nor the eye-witnesses were able to give the police a clear description of the attackers. In 2000 the lawyer informed the state attorney's office that the persons responsible for the attack on the applicant had also carried out a number of other attacks on Roma. She provided two lines of inquiry: an eye witness who had identified one of the attackers and a television interview in which a young skinhead had admitted engaging in attacks on the Roma population in Zagreb. Neither yielded a result. The person identified by the eye witness was eliminated from the inquiry without being questioned because none of the other witnesses had identified him, despite a very noticeable scar, and he did not appear to belong to a skinhead group. Likewise, the police were unable to question the person who had appeared on the television interview as the journalist refused to reveal his identity. In February 2001 the applicant's lawyer informed the prosecuting authorities of several further attacks on the Roma population by skinheads and gave the names and addresses of the victims and witnesses. The criminal proceedings are still at the pre-trial stage. An attempt by the applicant to expedite matters by a complaint to the Constitutional Court was dismissed on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction in such cases.
Law: Article 3 – The applicant's injuries were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment. The authorities had been under a duty to take all reasonable steps to collect the relevant evidence promptly. However, the criminal proceedings had been pending in the pre-trial phase for almost seven years without the police bringing any charges. Although they had concluded that the attack had been carried out by skinheads known to have participated in similar incidents, they did not appear to have questioned anyone belonging to that group or to have followed up the information that had been provided in any way. Moreover, they had excluded the person identified by the eye witness from the list of possible suspects without questioning him. Nor had the police sought a court order to compel the journalist to reveal his source, despite a change in the law in 2003 that had enabled them to do so. Seeking such an order would not necessarily have been incompatible with the freedom of the media guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention, since it would have been for the competent court to weigh up all the interests and to decide whether the source's identity should be revealed. Lastly, the police had not made use of any of the other investigative measures open to them or taken any action since 2001.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 – The applicant's attackers were suspected of belonging to a group of skinheads. It was in the nature of such groups to be governed by extremist and racist ideology. Accordingly, knowing that the attack was probably the result of ethnic hatred, the police should not have allowed the investigation to drag on for more than seven years without taking any serious steps to identify or prosecute those responsible.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 8,000 for 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