Communicated on 23 October 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 5118/10
Dmitrijs SEMINARISTOVS
against Latvia
lodged on 5 January 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitrijs Seminaristovs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1974.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 September 2009, when the applicant was serving his sentence in the Brasa Prison, a special unit of the Prisons Administration “Vairogs” conducted a search of the applicant’s cell. The applicant submits that the officers of the special unit kicked him and his cell mates in the head and commanded them to lie down on floor. According to the applicant, he and his cell mates complied with this command. Then the applicant and his cell mates were conveyed to a yard. During this conveying the officers of the special unit kicked and beat the applicant and his cell mates with truncheons. When following the search they were being conveyed back to their cell they were beaten again. On the following day the applicant requested to be seen by a doctor.
On 21 September 2009 the applicant lodged complaints with the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Justice but these complaints were forwarded to the Prisons Administration. On 7 October 2012 the Prisons Administration returned one of the applicant’s complaints back to the applicant on the grounds that it was written in a foreign language. On 12 October 2009 the applicant addressed the Prisons Administration again and on the basis of this complaint the Prisons Administration initiated an internal investigation.
On 12 November 2009 the inspector of the Investigation division of the Prisons Administration decided not to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint but with a final decision of 29 December 2009 a prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office (Specializētā vairāku nozaru prokuratūra) upheld this decision. She stated that during the search of 18 September 2009 special measures – physical force and special restraint techniques – were used against the applicant due to his refusal to comply with the command: “Stand up!” She also noted that the doctor’s examination had established that the applicant had a haemorrhage on his right upper leg, a bruise on his left elbow and small scratches on his right waist. The same diagnosis had been confirmed on 21 September 2009 following an additional medical check. Finally, the prosecutor referred back to the conclusions of 12 November 2009 of the Prisons Administration’s internal investigation that the use of force had been proportionate. She added that this conclusion was confirmed by other documents of the Brasa Prison file no. 16/09.
On the basis of the applicant’s complaint the Ombudsperson had initiated a review procedure about the alleged ill-treatment. His final report of 2 August 2010 concluded that the investigation into these allegations had had several shortcomings. First, the report noted that the applicant had been medically examined only on 21 October 2009, i.e., more than a month after the events he complained of. The report also remarked that the documents submitted by the Prisons Administration contained no information confirming that in the course of the internal investigation a proper medical examination of the applicant would have been conducted. The Ombudsperson considered that the check carried out by an employee of the Medical Division of the Brasa Prison had been insufficient, as the documentation contained no information that would permit inferences as to the time and circumstances in which the injuries had been acquired. Furthermore, the report of the Ombudsperson noted that there was a contradiction between the information provided by the Prisons Administration’s employees and the conclusion of the Prisons Administration of 12 November 2009 with regard to the use of the truncheons. Accordingly, the Ombudsperson concluded that the investigation had had significant shortcomings and that it had not been diligent and comprehensive.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic provisions pertaining to the investigation of criminal offences committed by detainees, prisoners and prison staff as well as those relating to the use of physical force, restraint techniques and measures by prison officers have been summarised in Sapožkovs v. Latvia (no. 8550/03, §§ 46-48, 11 February 2014)
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill‑treatment on 18 September 2009 by the special unit of the Prisons Administration “Vairogs,” as well as about the quality 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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, 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 Sapožkovs v. Latvia, no. 8550/03, § 70, 11 February 2014), was it thorough and effective (Timofejevi v. Latvia, no. 45393/04, § 94, 11 December 2012 and Sorokins and Sorokina v. Latvia, no. 45476/04, §95, 28 May 2013), as well as compatible with all the other requirements set out in the case law of the Court?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy