[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
8550/03
by Aleksandrs SAPOZKOVS
against
Latvia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 6 December 2011 as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2003,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Aleksandrs SapoZkovs, is a
permanently resident “non-citizen” of the Republic of
Latvia who was born in 1959 and is currently serving his sentence in
Jelgava Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant,
may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s conviction and imprisonment
- On
4 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
- On
28 February 2000 the case material was sent to a court for
adjudication.
- On
13 September 2002 the Rīga Regional Court convicted the
applicant of aggravated murder, burglary and theft and sentenced him
to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
- On
3 February 2003 the Criminal Chamber of the
Supreme Court upheld the conviction for burglary and theft, acquitted
the applicant on the charge of aggravated murder and convicted him of
murder instead. The sentence was reduced to twelve years’
imprisonment.
- On
17 March 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the
applicant’s appeal on points of law in a preparatory meeting.
- The
applicant served his sentence in various prisons: Central Prison,
Brasa Prison, Matīsa Prison, Jelgava Prison, Daugavpils Prison
and Daugavgrīva Prison. It appears that the applicant was
transferred from Daugavgrīva Prison back to Jelgava Prison on 1
July 2009.
- In
the meantime, on 18 October 2007 the applicant was convicted of
having attacked a member of the prison staff. He was sentenced to six
years and ten months’ imprisonment.
2. Events of 1 July 2009 in Daugavgrīva Prison
- On
1 July 2009 the applicant was subject to a search in his cell in view
of his scheduled transfer to Jelgava Prison. The applicant had more
than 30 kg of personal effects, which was the maximum, so he was
asked to leave some things behind. It appears that a dispute ensued
between the applicant and the prison staff. In the applicant’s
submission he was brutally beaten by three members of the prison
staff until he fell to the ground unconscious. He received more blows
when he regained consciousness.
- Initially,
no criminal proceedings in connection with these events were opened.
However, upon a complaint by the applicant, on 9 and 17 September
2009 a prosecutor informed him that criminal proceedings had been
opened and the material had been sent for investigation to the
Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu
pārvalde).
- On
17 November 2009 the applicant gave evidence to the investigator in
person. He submitted that inspector A.F. had beaten him with a
truncheon in a cruel manner. He had received blows to his jaw, the
left side of his chest, both arms and other parts of his body; he
could not remember the number of blows. Another inspector, M.B., and
a sergeant whose name he did not know had joined in and they had
delivered numerous blows to his body with truncheons. Eventually, he
had lost consciousness and had fallen to the ground. After he had
regained consciousness, inspector M.B. had continued to beat him with
a truncheon.
- On
4 January 2010 the applicant sent a handwritten testimony, dated 26
October or 1 November 2010, to the Prosecutor’s Office with a
view to having it added to the case material; it was forwarded to the
investigative authority – the Prisons Administration. According
to the applicant, inspector A.F. had delivered blows to his lower jaw
and the left side of his chest. Blows to his arms had ensued as he
had attempted to cover his face. He had then received an order to
face the wall; another inspector, M.B., and an unknown sergeant had
taken their truncheons and all three of them had started to deliver
blows to his body in a cruel manner. He had fallen to the ground
unconscious. After having had regained consciousness, he had sat with
his back against the wall. Inspector M.B. had come forward and had
started to beat him in the legs.
- On
19 January 2010 a forensic medical examination of the applicant was
ordered; it was completed on the same date. The applicant had the
following bodily injuries: bruises and two ecchymoses on his back in
the area of shoulder blades, a bruise and an ecchymosis on both the
upper and lower left arm, a bruise and an ecchymosis on the lower
right arm, a bruise and an ecchymosis (on the back) on the right
thigh, a bruise and an ecchymosis on the lower right leg and skin
abrasions on both legs.
- On
28 January 2010 the applicant was declared a victim in connection
with the criminal proceedings. He was interviewed and maintained his
previous statements.
- On
an unknown date, the investigator heard evidence from witnesses and
prison staff. Both inspectors, M.B. and A.F, were questioned. Two
other members of prison staff were questioned, but not sergeant K.D.,
who had been present. Inspector M.B. testified that the applicant had
issued threats to the three members of prison staff present and
stated that he could kill anybody since he was a boxer. The applicant
had then attempted to punch inspector M.B. with his right fist; he
had been prevented from doing so by inspector A.F., who had hit him
once with a truncheon. The applicant had not complied with an order
to face the wall and inspector A.F. and sergeant K.D. had delivered
five to ten blows with truncheons to the applicant’s arms, legs
and back to subdue him. Other members of the prison staff gave
identical evidence.
- In
addition, another member of the prison security staff gave evidence
to the effect that video surveillance cameras did not fully cover the
relevant part of Daugavgrīva Prison.
It stemmed from his submissions that the relevant recordings had been
destroyed owing to the expiry of the prescribed storage time-limits.
- On
11 March 2010, upon a complaint by the applicant, the investigative
authority informed him that certain unspecified investigative
measures were being taken by the senior investigator of Jelgava
Prison.
- On
15 June 2010, upon a complaint by the applicant, the investigative
authority informed him that a procedural decision would be taken soon
and that he would be informed of it as soon as it was adopted.
- On
6 July 2010 the criminal proceedings were terminated with a decision;
the applicant received it on the next day. The decision contained
references to the applicant’s testimony, the testimonies of the
members of the prison staff and the results of the medical
examination. In addition, reference was made to the testimony of an
inmate, who was not an eyewitness to the events but who had overheard
them. According to him, the applicant had received blows to his body
while on the ground. It was concluded that on 1 July 2009 the members
of the prison staff had not used excessive force on the applicant and
that the special measure (the use of truncheons) had been applied
following a procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the officers had
not exceeded their official powers. The criminal proceedings were
terminated on the grounds of absence of a crime.
- The
applicant lodged several appeals against this decision with the
prosecutor’s office. They were dismissed in a final decision of
19 October 2010.
COMPLAINTS
- In
his first letter to the Court, posted on 5 March 2003, the applicant
lodged several complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. He
posted the completed application form on 16 April 2003 and maintained
those complaints. In addition, he lodged complaints under Article 5 §
1 (c), Articles 5 § 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the
Convention.
- The
applicant introduced various further complaints among other things
about excessive use of force and conditions of detention in several
prisons under Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, on 11
August 2009 the applicant alleged that he had been subjected to
ill-treatment in Daugavgrīva Prison on 1 July 2009 and that the
matter was not properly investigated.
THE LAW
A. Complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment on 1
July 2009 and its investigation
- The
applicant complained that excessive force was used during the search
of 1 July 2009 in Daugavgrīva Prison. He further complained
about the investigation carried out into the matter.
- The
Court will examine these complaints under Article 3 of the
Convention, which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file,
determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints and
that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2
(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the
application to the respondent Government.
B. Other complaints
- The
applicant further complained under different Articles of the
Convention about numerous violations of his rights.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows
that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn
the examination of the applicant’s
complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the
alleged ill-treatment on 1 July 2009 and its investigation;
Declares the remainder of
the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Josep
Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
