Vladimir Romanov v. Russia

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110

July 2008

Vladimir Romanov v. Russia - 41461/02

Judgment 24.7.2008 [Section I]

Article 34

Victim

Lack of effective investigation into the torture of a detainee who had been awarded compensation: victim status upheld

Article 3

Torture

Positive obligations

Disproportionate and unjustified use of truncheons against a detainee and lack of effective investigation: violation

Facts: In June 2001 prison warders of the detention facility where the applicant was being held entered his cell and, in order to force the inmates out, hit them with rubber truncheons. The warders continued to beat the applicant even when he had been forced into the corridor and had fallen to the floor. He was immediately examined by the prison dermatologist who recorded linear bruising on his legs and back. He was subsequently taken to the prison hospital, where doctors noted that the applicant had sustained a chest injury caused by a blunt instrument. He also had an operation for a ruptured spleen. Relying on a report of the incident drawn up by the detention facility, the Government submitted that the warders had had to resort to force owing to unrest in the applicant’s cell which had risked turning into a generalised prison riot. The prosecutor refused to bring criminal proceedings against the warders as he considered their actions to have been lawful. The applicant subsequently brought judicial proceedings in which he sought compensation. The courts found that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful, but in view of the serious life-threatening damage he had sustained and the insufficient control by the detention facility over its warders, he was awarded a sum equivalent to EUR 960. In 2002 the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to imprisonment. The domestic courts based that decision, in particular, on two depositions made by the alleged victim of the robbery during the pre-trial investigation. As he was out of the country, he did not appear at the trial and his depositions were therefore read out.

Law:Article 3 – Concerning the alleged ill-treatment: The use of rubber truncheons in the applicant’s case had had a legal basis under the Penitentiary Institutions Act and the Custody Act. Use of force might, on occasion, be necessary to ensure prison security, maintain order or prevent crime in penitentiary facilities. However, the Court did not see any reason why the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant had been necessary. Indeed, the warders’ actions had been grossly disproportionate to what the applicant had been accused of, disobedience. The warders might admittedly have needed to resort to physical force in order to remove inmates from their cell, but the Court was not convinced that hitting them with a truncheon had been conducive to achieving that aim. Furthermore, the Court did not consider it established that the applicant had actively resisted the warders. In the detention facility’s documents he had not been listed as one of the instigators of or active participants in the incident. Mention of an active role by the applicant had first been made in the prosecutor’s decision. There was no explanation for that discrepancy. Given that the warders had continued hitting him even when he had complied with the order to leave his cell and had fallen to the floor, the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant had been a form of reprisal. That punitive violence had been deliberately intended to arouse in him feelings of fear and humiliation and to break his physical or moral resistance. The injuries had to have caused him serious physical pain and intense mental suffering and had resulted in long-term damage to his health. The applicant had therefore been subjected to treatment which could be described as torture.

Concerning the applicant’s victim status and the effectiveness of the investigation: The issue of the applicant’s victim status was closely linked to the questions whether the investigation into the events at issue had been effective and whether the compensation awarded had amounted to sufficient redress for his suffering. Although the Court was not convinced that the judgments awarding compensation to the applicant had amounted to an acknowledgment in substance of a breach of Article 3, it decided to proceed on that assumption. The applicant had received at least partial compensation for the ill-treatment he had suffered. However, in cases of wilful ill-treatment, a violation of Article 3 could not be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim because, if that were the case, it would be possible for the State to avoid prosecuting and punishing those responsible and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment would be ineffective in practice. The Court therefore had also to examine the effectiveness of the investigation. As regards its promptness, it had taken the facility’s administration three days to inform the prosecution authorities about the incident, a delay which could have resulted in a loss of evidence. As regards its thoroughness, no evaluation had been carried out with respect to the quantity and nature of the applicant’s injuries, in view of the different versions of the events. The prosecutor had relied on three medical reports drafted only by prison doctors which had provided limited medical information and had not included any explanation by the applicant regarding his complaints. Similarly, the assessment of the evidence had been selective and inconsistent, the conclusions being based mainly on the warders’ testimonies, the credibility of which should also have been questioned. Indeed, it was curious that it had been impossible to identify those inmates who had been eyewitnesses to the beatings and who could have provided relevant information. Nor had there at any point been any attempt to analyse the degree of force used by the warders and whether it had been necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. The prosecution had, without any independent evidence, found that the warders had lawfully assaulted the applicant owing to his physical resistance. Lastly, the domestic courts had simply relied on the findings of the prosecutor; eyewitnesses to the incident, including the applicant himself and the warders who had beaten him, had never been questioned personally. The Court was particularly struck by the fact that the courts had awarded the applicant compensation relying on a mere lack of sufficient control on the part of the detention facility over its warders. In view of those failings, the authorities’ reaction to a grave incident of deliberate ill-treatment by its agents had been inadequate and inefficient and the measures they had taken had failed to provide appropriate redress to the applicant. The applicant could therefore still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

For more details see Press Release no. 546. See also Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, judgment of 15 May 2008, Information Note no. 108.

© 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