Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , a police patrol from FAC pulled the applicant over in his car and asked him to produce an identity card . He replied that he did not have his identity card with him but that his name was PERSON and he was a lawyer and a former police officer . The applicant was invited to get out of the car .

After TIME , he got back into his car and drove off abruptly . According to the police officers , their colleague , PERSON , was hit by the applicant ’s car while he was trying to stop him .

The applicant alleged that he had left because the police officers had physically abused and insulted him .

The QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident contested the applicant ’s account of events . They stated that because the applicant had smelled strongly of alcohol , they had asked him to accompany them to a forensic laboratory to determine his blood alcohol content . The applicant had refused , got into his car and left the scene .

The police officers got into their car immediately and began chasing him . They also asked the police station for reinforcements . After QUANTITY the police car collided with the applicant ’s car , forcing him to stop . The police officers immobilised and handcuffed the applicant .

As the applicant again refused to show an identity card , the police officers carried out a body search and a search of his car .

NORP The applicant tried to escape , running towards the field to the left side of the road . Being handcuffed , he moved with difficulty . After QUANTITY , the police officers immobilised him again . The applicant claimed that he had been repeatedly kicked by the police officers .

One of the police officers had the idea to invite reporters from the “ ORG CARDINAL ” television channel to come to the scene in order to film the incident . Within TIME a group of television reporters had arrived and started taking images of the applicant handcuffed and covered in blood .

NORP The police officers continued their search , checking the contents of a bag found in the applicant ’s vehicle . Inside the bag they found the applicant ’s driving licence .

The applicant claimed that the police officers had carried out the search of his bag after breaking its lock despite the fact that he had expressed his intent to open the bag and give them his identity documents . This allegation was confirmed by witness statements and the images filmed by the television reporters .

In the end the applicant was taken to the forensic laboratory , where his blood alcohol content was tested .

The applicant underwent a medical examination at ORG . According to the medical certificate issued on DATE , he presented injuries that could have been caused by being hit with a hard object and would need DATE of medical treatment .

TIME after the incident , the QUANTITY police officers drafted an incident report , presenting their version of the events . The report was signed by GPE and GPE , who allegedly eye - witnessed the incident .

The police officers also drafted a search report describing the items found in the applicant ’s bag and car . This report was signed by PERSON , who were allegedly present when the search was carried out .

Other police officers arrived at the scene of the incident , carried out an investigation and drafted an on - site investigation report ( raport de constatare la fața locului ) . According to their report , ORG had asked for their intervention because their colleague , PERSON , had been hit by a car driven by a person under the influence of alcohol . Their report was signed by PERSON , who also signed the incident report . The report presented the same version of events as the incident report .

V.L. produced a written statement immediately after the incident , confirming the police ORG version of events . In later statements made on DATE , DATE and DATE , he changed his initial version of events , claiming that he had not been present at the scene of the incident . In this regard he admitted that on TIME DATE , he had been stopped by a police patrol and asked where he was going . After informing them that he was going to the nearby village , the police officers asked him to come back later . He alleged that he had not gone back but that on TIME , at TIME , CARDINAL of the police officers he had met TIME accompanied by CARDINAL other police officers had visited him at home . They had dictated a statement to him and asked him to sign it . They also asked him to sign an incident report and a search report , both of which were blank .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG initiated a criminal investigation against him for false testimony . It noted that after he had signed the incident and on - site reports and produced a written statement which confirmed the version of events presented by the police officers , he had changed his position , stating that he had not been present at the scene of the incident .

On DATE the criminal investigation was discontinued because other witnesses present at the scene of the incident stated that they had not seen PERSON on TIME DATE .

On DATE , PERSON changed his initial statement , claiming that it had been dictated to him by police officers . According to his latest statement he was stopped by police officers only after most of the events had already occurred . He had seen the applicant ’s car in a ditch and QUANTITY police officers approaching with the applicant from a nearby field . He had noticed that the applicant was handcuffed , had blood on his face and appeared to have an injury on his right temple . PERSON had heard the applicant telling the police officers his name and that he was a lawyer .

C.G. also stated that he had been present when the police officers invited reporters from the “ ORG CARDINAL ” channel to come and film the incident and that PERSON had not been present at the scene of the events .

B.F. had been in the same car as PERSON on TIME DATE .

On DATE she stated that on TIME of the events she had seen the applicant with blood on his face and obvious signs of violence . She also mentioned that she had heard the applicant asking the police officers not to force his bag open because he would open the bag and give them his identity card himself . In her statement of DATE she mentioned that the whole of her initial statement , made immediately after the events , had been dictated to her by the police officers .

In a statement made on DATE , ORG contended that on TIME CARDINAL September CARDINAL he had seen a police car following a white car . He had also seen the police car forcing the other car to stop and enter a ditch . He had left his car and gone closer to see what had happened . He claimed that he had seen the applicant on the ground and the police officers kicking him . He also claimed that he had heard the applicant crying out in pain and asking them not to kill him because he had children at home . All the police officers had been hitting and insulting him . Afraid to be caught watching the scene by the police officers , he had left , taking the opposite direction in order to avoid a possible meeting with the police car .

DATE , he had seen the footage taken by the “ ORG CARDINAL ” reporters and decided to make a statement before the prosecutor .

According to the chief prosecutor ’s decision of DATE , on DATE ORG changed his initial statement , admitting that he had not been present at the scene of the events of DATE but had been trying to help the applicant .

On DATE the television channel “ ORG CARDINAL ” broadcast its DATE programme , “ the ORG ” ( Brigada mobilă ) . Most of it concerned the applicant ’s case .

The filmed images were broadcast to a large audience and the applicant was recognised by a large number of people , notably because of his profession as a lawyer . The footage was broadcast again on DATE by the same television channel .

On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant for driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol , causing bodily harm and using insulting behaviour .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to GPE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation .

It held that the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol had not been factually substantiated because according to a forensic report drafted on DATE , the applicant ’s blood alcohol content had been PERCENT . In connection with the body injury of police officer PERSON , it noted that no medical certificate had been included in the file and held that the applicant had had no intent to harm him . In respect of the alleged insulting behavior , it held that no offence had been made out . It also noted that the applicant had got into his car and left the scene because he had been insulted and hit by the police officers .

NORP The prosecutor ’s decision stated that the police officers “ had beaten the applicant , forced his bag , containing personal valuable items , open and invited the television channel “ Antena CARDINAL ” to report on the incident ” . It concluded that the applicant had not committed any offence and that the police officers had breached their duties . It indicated that its findings were supported by the witness statements . It concluded by noting that the CARDINAL police officers had behaved abusively towards the applicant and in order to cover up their actions they had fabricated false evidence . It appears that this decision remained final , as its findings were not challenged

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident for theft and bodily injury . He claimed that they had beaten him and stolen CARDINAL United States dollars from his bag . He also claimed that he had been handcuffed and unlawfully kept in the police car for TIME . He added that the police officers had carried out unlawful searches of his car and bag . On DATE the applicant added to his initial criminal complaint a new complaint for insult and slander against CARDINAL of the police officers . The applicant alleged that they had made insulting comments about him while the television reporters were filming him . He based his complaint on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in force at that time .

On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against the CARDINAL police officers from FAC for abuse of authority , forgery of official documents , use of forged documents and instigation to false testimony . The military prosecutor held that on TIME DATE , while on duty , the police officers had subjected the applicant to ill - treatment , causing him injuries which needed CARDINAL of medical treatment . He also held that the police officers had tried to cover up their criminal activity by drafting reports which did not reflect what had actually happened and had forced the witnesses to make false statements .

On DATE the military prosecutor discontinued his investigation in connection with the alleged theft . For the rest of the offences imputed to the police officers , he relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG .

On DATE the applicant asked for the criminal investigation against the police officers to take other offences into account . He claimed that they had destroyed his bag , mobile phone , and watch bracelet . He again claimed that his honour and reputation had been damaged by the remarks made by the police officers in front of the television camera .

NORP The applicant also asked the prosecutor to start an investigation against the police officers who had drafted the on - site report , claiming that they had forced FAC to sign their report despite the fact that he had not witnessed the events .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG decided to discontinue the investigation on the ground that there was no evidence that the police officers had subjected the applicant to illtreatment . Furthermore , he stated that the applicant ’s injuries had been self - inflicted and that he had destroyed the bracelet of his watch and his mobile phone himself . The applicant ’s complaint for insult and slander was dismissed on the ground that it had not been lodged within the legal time - limit of DATE provided by LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) . In respect of the insulting remarks addressed to the applicant by the police officers , the prosecutor held that they had been justified by the applicant ’s attitude .

He also pointed out that the body search and the search of the applicant ’s bag had been necessary in order to establish his identity . As regards the on - site report , the prosecutor admitted that it had been forged but noted that it could not be established who had signed the report as the police officers denied that they had signed it . Therefore , in order to ensure the identification of the persons who had forged the report , he decided to sever those proceedings and concluded that the offences of forgery and use of forged documents had not been made out . He also held that PERSON had changed his initial statement under the influence of the applicant . His presence at the scene of the incident on TIME DATE had been confirmed by all the police officers .

The prosecutor decided to sever the proceedings initiated by the applicant against the television reporters and to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor ’s office attached to GPE Court .

On DATE the chief prosecutor dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and confirmed the prosecutor ’s decision .

The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG on the basis of LAW ORG . On DATE the firstinstance court dismissed the complaint , holding that the applicant ’s injuries had not been caused by the police officers but had been selfinflicted when he was trying to take off the handcuffs . It based its findings on the initial statements given by witnesses PERSON and B.D. It also held that he had been handcuffed and made to sit in the police car because of his own behaviour .

The applicant appealed , claiming that the firstinstance court had simply reiterated the prosecutor ’s decision without providing its own reasons .

On DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , upholding the judgment of the firstinstance court .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the reporters and the owners of the “ ORG CARDINAL ” television channel . He claimed a violation of LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) . He claimed that the police officers had invited the reporters to film him handcuffed , with his face covered in blood and his clothes torn and dirty . The images had been broadcast without his consent on DATE at peak viewing time and again on DATE . He also claimed that the images had been accompanied by insulting comments presenting him as an offender despite the fact that he had not committed an offence , as proved by the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against him . He joined a civil claim to the criminal complaint .

DATE . On DATE the prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG upheld the decision not to initiate a criminal investigation .

The applicant ’s appeal against the prosecutor ’s decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the ground that the investigating authorities had not obtained the authorisation of ORG and the ORG . It held that such authorisation was mandatory for the initiation of a criminal investigation against a television channel under the LAW .