Published on 11 April 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 19420/20
Tomas IVANAUSKAS
against Lithuania
lodged on 16 April 2020
communicated on 25 March 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a prisoner. He complains that in July 2015 he was beaten by truncheons and hit by fists and kicked by the prison guards during the search that took place in the Alytus prison; other inmates were also beaten. The same day the applicant saw a prison doctor, where the applicant complained about pain in his shoulder and arm, bruising of his arm and pain in one of the kidneys. At certain point, a pre-trial investigation, concerning the criminal charges of abuse of office, was opened. The applicant was initially questioned as a witness; subsequently, he was granted procedural status of a victim. Eventually, the pre-trial investigation was discontinued, the authorities having held that no crime had been performed by the guards.
The applicant started administrative court proceedings, claiming 50,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damage on account of his injuries, stress and psychological suffering. By a decision of 5 June 2018 the first instance court partly granted the claim. The court referred to the medical report wherein the applicant’s injuries had been documented and held that the applicant had proven unlawful actions by the prison guards. The court also underscored the State’s positive obligation to protect inmates’ safety and their health when in prison. That being so, referring to the fact that the applicant had not sustained long term health impairment, that it had been a one-time event, and to the living standard in Lithuania, it awarded the applicant a sum of EUR 200 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The applicant appealed, arguing that the award was derisory. The prison, for its part, argued that there was no factual proof that the applicant had been injured, because the pre-trial investigation had been discontinued.
By a final ruling of 29 October 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the first instance court’s decision and took a new decision - dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that, given that the pre-trial investigation had been discontinued, the State’s liability did not arise.
Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he had been subjected to physical violence by the prison guards, which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-121, ECHR 2000-IV; Saçılık and Others v. Turkey, nos. 43044/05 and 45001/05, §§ 85-88, 5 July 2011, and Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 145, 27 May 2010)?
If so, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention?