FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 76559/11
Marek SZYMAŃSKI
against Poland
lodged on 20 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marek Szymański, is a Polish national, who was born in 1957. He is currently serving a sentence in Koronowo prison.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 January 2011 the applicant was arrested by the police on the basis of a wanted notice and detained at a police station in Toruń. Before he was put in detention, he was examined by a doctor and a psychiatrist. They found that he was fit for detention.
In the night he made a suicide attempt, trying to hang himself with torn sheets. The police officers intervened and used force in order to overpower him.
On 11 January 2011 the applicant complained about the excessive use of force, submitting that he had been beaten up, verbally abused and humiliated. He submitted that he had strong pains in his chest. On 17 January 2011 he made a written complaint which was served on the prosecutor’s office on 24 January 2011.
On 11 January 2011 the applicant was admitted to the hospital in Toruń prison. It was established that he had two broken ribs and a punctured lung. He remained in the hospital for treatment until 1 February 2011.
On 6 February 2011 he reiterated his complaint in a letter to the Toruń District Prosecutor. He submitted that he had two broken ribs which had punctured his lung. He referred to the medical records of his hospital treatment.
By a decision of 17 June 2011 the Torun District Prosecutor refused to institute an investigation of the applicant’s allegations. The prosecutor established that the applicant had been arrested on 7 January 2011 and placed in detention at a police station in Toruń-Rubinkowo. During the night of 7 January 2011 he had tried to commit suicide by hanging. He had become very violent and the two police officers on duty had been obliged to use force to overcome his resistance and to prevent him from committing suicide. Later on the applicant had complained of pain, but a paramedic who examined him in the morning of 8 January 2011 found no reasons for taking him to a hospital. It was further noted that the applicant had informed the authorities about the incident with delay which, in the prosecutor’s view, did not lend credibility to his allegations.
The prosecutor concluded that the police officers had not exceeded their powers and that their reaction had been adequate to the gravity of the situation. The applicant had failed to submit evidence to the contrary.
The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision, arguing that the prosecutor had entirely disregarded important pieces of evidence. In particular, the applicant’s medical record indicated that on 11 January 2011 he had been admitted to the prison hospital, where he had subsequently spent three weeks. He had been diagnosed with severe lung injuries. Two of his ribs had been broken.
The lawyer argued that the injuries suffered by the applicant clearly indicated that the force used had been excessive. Further, the prosecutor had failed to take into consideration the testimony of other detainees. The examination of the case and the interpretation of the available evidence was exceptionally selective and exceedingly general (“wyjątkowo wybiórczy i nad wyraz ogólny”), in particular in that the applicant’s injuries and three-week stay in the hospital after the events complained of had not been addressed.
By a decision of the 20 September 2011 the Torun District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court essentially repeated the prosecutor’s arguments. It also held that the injuries had probably been sustained by the applicant prior to his arrest.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill‑treated by the police and that the investigation into his allegations was not thorough and effective. The force used by the police officers was excessive and breached the Convention. He complains that the prosecutor and the court uncritically accepted the police officers’ version of events without giving a plausible explanation as to the origin of his injury, in particular the broken ribs, and failing to address the available medical evidence.
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 paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), were the investigations by the domestic authorities into the allegations of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy