003-3848227-4422704

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 067 (2012)   16.02.2012   Witness tortured by the police in unlawful custody   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Savin v. Ukraine (application no. 34725/08),   which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment;   obligation to conduct an effective investigation) of the European Convention on   Human Rights   A violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)   The case concerned the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police during unlawful police   custody.   Principal facts   The applicant, Vyacheslav Savin, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in   Kharkiv (Ukraine).   In the evening of 18 October 1999, Mr Savin was summoned as a witness in a fraud   case. At the police station, an officer tied his hands behind his back and punched him all   over his body, in particular in the head, in order to make him confess to the crime. Mr   Savin was kept at the police station until the following morning.   Having been in good health before the investigation, Mr Savin’s head injuries were so   severe that he is now disabled, suffering from sensory and motor impairment and a   convulsive disorder. Two days after his release, he was examined by a doctor who   documented a number of injuries to his head and concluded that they could have dated   from the time Mr Savin was held at the police station. He was immediately admitted to a   neurological hospital, where he underwent treatment for several weeks. Between 2000   and 2003 he was hospitalised again on numerous occasions.   From the day of his release Mr Savin lodged numerous complaints with prosecution   authorities concerning unlawful detention and torture by the police. Between 1999 and   2008, the prosecutors refused on six occasions to institute criminal proceedings against   the police, having discerned no indication of a crime in their actions. All those decisions   were subsequently quashed by higher-level prosecution authorities as premature,   unlawful and based on a perfunctory investigation not aimed at establishing the truth. In   December 1999, the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation in respect of infliction of   grievous bodily injuries on Mr Savin by unknown persons, which was stayed several   times for failure to identify the offenders.   In July 2008, the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of abuse of   power, associated with violence and degrading treatment, against the police officer   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   accused by Mr Savin to have ill-treated him. The investigation established that the officer   had detained Mr Savin on the basis of a false administrative offence report – alleging   that he had apprehended him for swearing in public. The officer was found guilty as   charged in March 2010. However, the court released him from criminal liability and   punishment as the charges were time-barred. The court also decided to leave a civil   claim by Mr Savin against the officer without examination. During the criminal   proceedings, the officer was temporarily suspended from his duties but later restored to   his post.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Mr Savin complained that his ill-treatment in police custody   amounted to torture and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was neither   independent nor effective. He also alleged that his detention on 18 and 19 October 1999   was unlawful and that the authorities failed to investigate this allegation, in breach of   Article 5 § 1.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 June 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,   Elisabet Fura (Sweden),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Angelika Nußberger (Germany),   André Potocki (France), Judges,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (ill-treatment)   It was not in dispute between the parties that Mr Savin had been ill-treated by the police   officer in October 1999. In assessing the treatment to which he had been subjected   during his two-day police custody, the Court referred to the findings of the domestic   investigation culminating in the court decisions finding the officer guilty. It had been   established that he had tied Mr Savin’s hands behind his back and had subjected him to   extensive beating to the head and that the aim of the ill-treatment had been to coerce   him into confessing to a criminal offence. The Court further attached weight to the   medical experts’ findings according to which Mr Savin’s disability was a direct result of   the ill-treatment. Those findings were sufficient for the Court to conclude that he had   been tortured, in violation of Article 3.   Article 3 (investigation)   The Court observed that the investigation into Mr Savin’s allegation of torture had lasted   for more than ten years, during which investigators had repeatedly refused to institute   criminal proceedings against the police six times, all those decisions later being quashed   by higher-level prosecution authorities. Having regard to the investigators’ apparent   disregard for the instructions of the higher-level prosecutors, the Court considered that   such remittals disclosed serious deficiencies in the investigation, which were a structural   problem in Ukraine, as the Court had previously found.   The police officer, having been found guilty, had faced no criminal liability or sanctions   and had been suspended from duty only temporarily. That situation showed the lack of   any meaningful effort to prevent future similar violations. The Court concluded that the   State had fallen short of its obligation to conduct an effective investigation into Mr   Savin’s allegation of torture. Accordingly there had been a violation of Article 3 in that   respect as well.   Article 5 § 1   The Court noted that, as established by the domestic investigation, Mr Savin’s detention   on 18 and 19 October 1999 had been based partly on a knowingly false administrative   offence report, and had partly been unrecorded, which amounted to a complete negation   of the guarantees contained in Article 5. There had accordingly been a violation of that   Article.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Ukraine was to   pay Mr Savin 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,800 in   respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 2,550 in respect of 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   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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