Information Note on the Court’s case-law 104

January 2008

Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia - 839/02

Judgment 24.1.2008 [Section I]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Torture

Ill-treatment of persons held for questioning and failure to follow correct procedures when prosecuting those responsible: violations

Article 38

Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities

Government’s refusal to disclose docum ents from investigation into allegations of ill treatment by State agents: failure to comply with Article 38

Facts : The first applicant complained of serious assault – including beatings, rape, suffocation and electric shocks – at the hands of police and p rosecution interrogators after she was called to a police station for questioning as a witness in a murder case in November 1999. She denied all involvement in the murder but says that she was forced to make a written confession. She was eventually release d after almost 24 hours in custody. Her mother and the second applicant were likewise detained for questioning and the second applicant alleged that prosecution officials punched, kicked and tried to suffocate him before evicting him from the building. The following day the first applicant filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging rape and torture. An investigation was immediately opened. Witnesses were interviewed, the police station searched and evidence was sent for forensic examination. In April 2000 four police officers and members of the prosecution service were formally charged. However, the trial court ruled all the prosecution evidence inadmissible owing to a failure to follow a special procedure that applied to proceedings against pro secution officers. The case was remitted for fresh investigation but later discontinued for want of evidence of an offence.

During the course of the proceedings before the Court, the Court requested the Government to submit a copy of the investigation file into the events at the police station. However, without any explanation, the Government refused to produce any documents other than copies of procedural decisions.

Law : Article 3 – (a) Substantive limb :

(i) First applicant : There was an impressive and unambiguous body of evidence in support of the first applicant’s version of events. Indeed, by bringing charges, referring the case for trial and then resuming and discontinuing the proceedings on numerous occasions, the autho rities had conceded that her allegations were credible. That evidence had been dismissed solely because of procedural defects. The Government had not provided any satisfactory or convincing explanation to disprove her allegations. The Court therefore accep ted the first applicant’s claims as to what had happened. The rape of a detainee by a State official had to be considered an especially grave and abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the ease with which the offender could exploit the vulnerability and wea kened resistance of his victim. Consequently, the physical violence, especially the cruel acts of repeated rape, to which the first applicant had been subjected, amounted to torture.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

(ii) Second applicant: Throughout t he domestic proceedings the second applicant had presented a coherent and convincing account of the events which was further corroborated by the evidence in the investigation file. Inferences could also be drawn from the Government’s failure to comply with the Court's request for a copy of the entire investigation file, which was seen as crucial to establishing the facts in the case. The Government had only produced copies of procedural decisions and had refused to submit any other documents. The Court ther efore accepted the second applicant’s version of events and concluded that the duration of his ill-treatment and its physical and mental effects, taken as a whole, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

(b) Procedural limb : The authorities appeared to have reacted diligently and promptly in order to identify and punish those responsible for the first applicant’s ill-treatment. However, procedural errors had led to a stalemate in the criminal proceedings. In t he absence of any plausible explanation, the only possible explanation was the prosecution authorities’ obvious incompetence in conducting the investigation during the relevant period. Accordingly, there had been no effective investigation into the first a pplicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. That reasoning also held true in the second applicant’s case.

Conclusion : violations (unanimously).

Article 38 § 1 (a) – Referring to the importance of a government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings and mindfu l of the difficulties associated with the establishment of the facts in cases such as the present one, the Court found that, by failing to submit the requested documents, the Government had failed to meet their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a).

Conclus ion : failure to comply (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 70,000 to the first applicant and EUR 10,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind t he Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes