003-3737928-4265291

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 230 (2011)   08.11.2011   Police who injured schizophrenic suspect during arrest guilty of   inhuman and degrading treatment   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case V.D. v. Croatia (application no. 15526/10),   which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the complaint by the applicant, who suffers from schizophrenia, that   the police ill-treated him while trying to arrest him.   Principal facts   The applicant, V. D., is a Croatian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Zagreb   (Croatia). He is suffering from schizophrenia.   In August 2006, the police brought a criminal complaint against V.D. It concerned an   alleged incident which happened on the night of 11 August 2006 in the flat of V.D.’s   parents, when he tried to strangle his own son and to assault the police officers who had   arrived at the flat to rescue the boy.   On 6 September 2006, an investigation was opened in respect of V.D. on suspicion of   attempted murder. In October 2006, evidence was taken from the police officers present   at V.D.’s flat, from a forensic expert, from V.D.’s common-law wife and from his parents.   In November 2006 V.D. was charged with attempted murder and on 27 March 2007 he   was found guilty of trying to kill his son and of attempting to prevent an official from   carrying out his duties.   In the meantime, in January 2007, V.D.’s parents brought a criminal complaint against   two of the police officers who had been at the flat on the night of the incident. They   alleged that the officers had brutally beaten their son after being called by someone who   had witnessed a minor argument which V.D. had had with his common-law wife outside   the building. An ambulance had taken V.D. to the hospital and the medical report drawn   up at the time showed that he had sustained a head contusion, tongue laceration,   haematomas around the eyes, haemorrhage of both eyes and lesions on the neck and   the right shoulder. The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that V.D. had injured   himself. V.D.’s parents filed a private accusation against the officer, again to no avail.   In August 2007, V.D.’s lawyer brought a criminal complaint against the other two police   officers who had allegedly been involved in V.D.’s beating. That complaint was also   dismissed as the court found that V.D. had hurt himself while resisting arrest by biting   his tongue and banging his head on the floor. A private accusation which V.D.’s parents   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   filed subsequently against the officers resulted in a court order for an investigation to be   carried out. The proceedings appear to be still pending.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, V.D. complained that the police beat him while   arresting him and that his related complaints were not investigated effectively.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 February   2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Anatoly Kovler (Russia), President,   Nina Vajić (Croatia),   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia), Judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3)   Admissibility   The Court recalled that it had repeatedly found in earlier case law that the payment of   damages as a result of a civil action did not absolve the State concerned from its   obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of   ill-treatment. In addition, as the criminal proceedings which had been brought by the   applicants as a private party after the State had refused to prosecute the two of the   police officers were still pending, the Court decided to assess them together with the   merits.   Ill-treatment   After the police intervention at his parents’ flat, V.D. had sustained a number of injuries.   It had been undisputed that he had attacked one of the officers and bitten him on the   arm. The police officers had maintained that he had banged his head on the floor and bit   his tongue in their presence. While the officers had denied beating V.D., they had   submitted that he had not had any visible injuries when they had arrived at the flat.   Consequently, the Court concluded that V.D. had been injured during the police   intervention at his parents’ flat.   The forensic expert had categorically excluded that V.D. could have injured himself by   hitting himself and had suggested that the injuries had rather been caused by blows with   a hard object or by kicking him when he had been lying down. However, the Croatian   authorities had accepted the version presented by the police officers and had not reacted   to the findings of the forensic expert. The Government had not furnished any convincing   arguments to explain how V.D. had sustained his injuries. The Court therefore   considered that the police officers had subjected V.D. to inhuman and degrading   treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Investigation   The authorities had dismissed the first criminal complaint brought against two of the   police officers without taking into account the findings of the forensic report. They had   done so despite the fact that that report had been the only source establishing how   V.D.’s injuries had been caused. No further effort had been made to establish the exact   manner in which V.D. had been injured and to assess whether the force used against   him at the time of arrest had been adequate or excessive.   The second criminal proceedings against the other two police officers were still pending   after more than three years of inactivity at the initial stages.   Consequently, no effective investigation had been carried out in either set of criminal   proceedings, in violation of Article 3.   Other articles   The Court found that, as the question of the effectiveness of the proceedings had already   been addressed in the context of Article 3, there was no need to examine the applicant’s   complaint under Article 13.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Croatia was to pay V.D. 23,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and EUR 8,500 for costs and expenses.   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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 07)   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.   3