003-3374154-3781646

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 963   14.12.2010   Serbian authorities failed to conduct effective investigation into   assaults likely motivated by religious hatred   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Milanović v. Serbia (application no. 44614/07),   which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there   had been:   A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the   European Convention on Human Rights and   A violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention taken   together with Article 3   The case concerned the authorities’ failure to prevent the repeated attacks on a member   of the Hare Krishna community and to investigate properly those incidents.   Principal facts   The applicant, Života Milanović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1961 and lives in   Belica (Jagodina Municipality, Serbia). Since 1984, he has been a leading member of the   Hare Krishna Hindu community in Serbia. In 2000, he began receiving telephone threats   and in 2001 informed the police of his impression that they came from members of a   local branch of a far-right organisation called Obraz.   He was physically assaulted a number of times by unidentified men who cut or stabbed   him with a knife, starting in 2001, and then again in the summer of 2005, 2006 and   2007, each time in the evening or at nighttime in the proximity of a relative’s flat in the   town of Jagodina. On each occasion, Mr Milanović or the hospital where he was provided   with urgent care reported the incident to the police. Mr Milanović also informed the police   that his attackers probably belonged to the local branch of the far-right organisation. The   police questioned him and a number of potential witnesses and took some investigative   steps, but failed to identify the perpetrators. They informed the Ministry of Internal   Affairs that they had found no evidence that the organisations in question had ever   existed in the municipality of Jagodina.   Two months after the incident in 2005, the police filed a criminal complaint against   unknown perpetrators. From 2006 on, Mr Milanović was supported by a human rights   organisation with which he jointly filed criminal complaints in respect of the 2005   incident and the subsequent ones, alleging that he was the victim of a crime motivated   by religious hatred. During the investigation, Mr Milanović asked the police to question   the head of a regional political party, as to whether any of his party’s members were   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution     skinheads, and to visit a local church where allegedly the organisation Obraz had its   premises. These steps did not yield any results. Having repeatedly requested an update   on the status of the criminal complaints, Mr Milanović was informed by the public   prosecutor’s office that the police had failed to provide it with any information in this   respect. In 2008, Mr Milanović further informed the judge in a preliminary investigation   that he believed to have seen one of his attackers in the street, wearing a shirt with a   reference to another far-right organisation.   In September 2009, the Chief Public Prosecutor petitioned the Constitutional Court to   ban the suspected organisations, in particular because of their incitement to racial and   religious hatred throughout Serbia.   In its records, the police noted on a number of occasions that Mr Milanović was a   member of a “religious sect” and had a “strange appearance”. In a report of April 2010,   the police further noted that most of the attacks had taken place around a major   orthodox religious holiday and that Mr Milanović had subsequently publicised these   incidents in the media and thus “emphasised” his religious affiliation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) and   (right to an effective remedy), Mr Milanović complained about the authorities’ failure   to prevent the repeated attacks on him and to investigate them properly. Under Article   taken together with Article 3, he further alleged that this failure was due to his   religious affiliation.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 October   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,   Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),   Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),   András Sajó (Hungary),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),   Guido Raimondi (Italy), Judges,   and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court had jurisdiction to examine the complaints only in so far as they concerned   events as of 3 March 2004, when Serbia ratified the Convention. For reasons of context   and in order to examine the situation complained of as a whole, it decided to take into   account all relevant events prior to that date.   Article 3   The Court considered that the injuries suffered by Mr Milanović, consisting mostly of   numerous cuts, combined with his feelings of fear and helplessness, were sufficiently   serious to amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Many years after the   attacks, the perpetrators had not been identified and brought to justice and Mr Milanović   appeared not to have been regularly updated of the course of the investigation or given   an opportunity to possibly identify his attackers from among a number of persons   questioned as witnesses and/or suspects by the police.   There had been shortcomings in the cooperation between the police and the public   prosecutor and the investigation seemed to have focused on Jagodina despite the fact   that the suspected far-right organisations were known for operating throughout the   country. Mr Milanović’s statement that one of his attackers, whom he identified in the   street, may have been a member of another particular organisation did not seem to have   been followed up at all. As from the second attack, it must have been clear to the police   that Mr Milanović, being a member of a vulnerable religious minority, was systematically   targeted and that future attacks were likely to follow. However, nothing had been done   to prevent such attacks.   While the authorities had taken many investigative steps and had encountered   significant difficulties, such as the apparent lack of eyewitnesses, the Court considered   that they had not taken all reasonable measures to conduct an adequate investigation   and they had failed to take effective steps in order to prevent Mr Milanović’s repeated ill-   treatment. There had thus been a violation of Article 3.   Article 14 taken together with Article 3   The Court considered that treating religiously motivated violence on an equal footing   with cases that had no such overtones meant turning a blind eye to the specific nature of   acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights. It was unacceptable that,   being aware that Mr Milanović’s attackers likely belonged to one or several far-right   organisations, the authorities had allowed the investigation to last for many years   without taking adequate action to identify or prosecute the perpetrators. The statements   made by the police in their reports, referring to Mr Milanović’s beliefs, his appearance   and the fact that he had publicised the incidents in the media, implied that they had   doubts as to whether he was a genuine victim in respect of his religion. As a   consequence, although the authorities had explored several leads proposed by Mr   Milanović concerning the motivation of his attackers these steps amounted to little more   than a pro forma investigation. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation   of Article 14 taken together with Article 3.   Other articles   In view of its findings under Article 3, the Court considered that it was not necessary to   examine separately the identical complaints under Articles 2 and 13.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Serbia was to pay the applicant   10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 in respect of   costs and expenses.   Separate opinion   Judge Raimondi expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the   judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4