|
Press release issued by the Registrar
Strasbourg, 10 June 2005 - The European Court of Human Rights reached
a judgment in the case of I. I. v. Bulgaria.
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
of the European Convention on Human Rights, and -
a violation of Article 5 § 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security)
of the Convention.
Principal facts
The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1962 and living in Shoumen
(Bulgaria). On 30 and 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part
in two violent incidents in a bar and a restaurant in Shoumen. Apparently,
during the second incident, a Mr P.P. was beaten, robbed, abducted and
threatened with violence.
At 11.55 p.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant was questioned at the Regional
Police Department in Shoumen, where he claims he was kept under arrest.
The Bulgarian Government denied that he was deprived of his liberty at
that time.
On 1 or 2 February 1998 he was transferred to a Shoumen Regional Investigation
Service detention facility where he remained until his release.
On 2 February 1998 an investigator ordered the applicant's preliminary
detention for 24 hours, as from 3.30 p.m. that day, on suspicion that
he had committed abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty on 31 January
1998. The order stated that the applicant had been arrested immediately
after he had committed the alleged offence. On 3 February 1998 a prosecutor
extended the applicant's preliminary detention for three more days, starting
to run from the day of the extension.
On 5 February 1998 the applicant was brought before an investigator,
who ordered his pre-trial detention. That order was confirmed by a prosecutor
the same day.
The applicant's appeal against his pre-trial detention was rejected by
the Shoumen Regional Court, which held that it could not go into issues
relating to the accusation and the evidence against the applicant, as
that concerned the merits of the criminal case against him. The applicant
remained in detention until 30 April 1998, when he was released on bail.
The Government conceded that the sanitary conditions in Shoumen Regional
Investigation Service detention facility during the relevant period had
been below the minimum required standards. It further conceded that the
facility had been overcrowded, that the cells did not have direct access
to sunlight and fresh air, that the detainees were allowed to visit the
toilet only three times a day and had to use a bucket to relieve themselves
at other times, and that there were no proper shower and bathing facilities.
The applicant submitted in addition that the cell was damp, underground
and approximately six square meters with no windows and a solid metal
door with only a small aperture allowing guards to inspect the cell. He
also claimed that detainees slept on wooden planks without bed linen,
that his psoriasis was aggravated by the condition in the cell and that
he developed acute eczema and started to develop psoriatic arthritis.
Complaints
The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, that his
detention between 31 January and 2 February 1998 was unlawful, that after
his arrest he was not brought before a judge or a judicial officer, and
that he was denied a full and speedy judicial review of his detention.
He relied on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court noted that the applicant was detained for three months in a
cell of six square metres, apparently occupied by three to four detainees.
The cell was dark, poorly ventilated and apparently damp and the conditions
in which the detainees had to relieve themselves in the toilet and attend
to their personal hygiene were unacceptable. There was no provision for
outdoor or out?of?cell activities; the applicant had to spend practically
all his time in the cell, which had no window and was lit by a single
electric bulb.
The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had to spend almost
24 hours a day for nearly three months in an overcrowded cell without
natural light or access to physical or other out?of?cell activities must
have caused him intense suffering. In the absence of compelling security
considerations, there was no justification for subjecting him to such
treatment. Neither was it warranted to subject a detainee to the humiliation
of having to relieve himself in a bucket in the presence of his cellmates
and of being present while the same bucket was being used by them, except
where allowing visits to the sanitary facilities would pose a concrete
and serious security risk. The Government had not claimed that such risks
existed.
The Court observed that many of the shortcomings outlined above could
have been remedied even in the absence of considerable financial means.
In any event, a lack of resources could not in principle justify detention
conditions which were so poor as to reach the threshold of severity contrary
to Article 3.
Having regard to the cumulative effects of the unduly stringent regime
to which the applicant was subjected, the material conditions in which
he was kept and the impact those conditions had on his health, the Court
held, unanimously, that the conditions of the applicant's detention amounted
to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.
Article 5 § 1
The Court noted that the applicant's detention between 11.55 p.m. on 31
January 1998 and 3.30 p.m. on 2 February 1998 did not appear to come within
the ambit of any of the provisions governing detention under Bulgarian
law.
Even accepting that Bulgarian law apparently allowed a short period to
elapse between a person's de facto arrest and the issuing of the order
for his "preliminary detention" by the competent investigator,
the Court could not overlook the fact that the applicant remained in custody
for approximately 39-and-a-half hours without any such order being issued.
The order for the applicant's preliminary detention also stated that the
24 hour period, during which such detention was permitted when initially
ordered by an investigator, started to run at 3.30 p.m. on 2 February
1998, not earlier. It thus appeared that the applicant's deprivation of
liberty between 11.55 p.m. on 31 January 1998 and 3.30 p.m. on 2 February
1998 had no legal basis in domestic law. The court therefore held, unanimously,
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.
Article 5 § 3
As it had held in previous judgments concerning pre-trial detention in
Bulgaria prior to 1 January 2000, the Court found that neither the investigator,
nor the prosecutor involved in the applicant's case were sufficiently
independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3, in view of
the practical role they played in the investigation and the prosecution
and the prosecutor's potential participation as a party to the criminal
proceedings. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been
a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the applicant's right to be brought
before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial
power.
Article 5 § 4
The Court observed that Shoumen Regional Court held that it could not
inquire into issues relating to the adequacy of the evidence against the
applicant. Neither did the court give specific reasons why it considered
that the applicant presented a risk of re?offending, impeding the investigation
or absconding. It held that it could solely focus on issues relating to
the applicant's health, only briefly noting - without giving any reasons
- that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant in view of the
pending investigation. Finding that the domestic court did not provide
judicial control over the applicant's detention on remand of the scope
required by Article 5 § 4, the Court held, unanimously, that there had
been a violation of Article 5 § 4. In view of that finding the Court did
not consider it necessary to rule on whether or not that defective judicial
review was conducted speedily.
top
|
|